Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014

Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014
State-of-the-Art and Future Development
Sascha Roth, Marin Zec, and Florian Matthes
Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis)

Chair for Informatics 19
Technische Universitat M
unchen
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching bei M
unchen, Germany
About sebis
The chair for Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis) is based within
the Department of Informatics at Technische Universitat M
unchen. The chair has been established in 2002 with funding from Ernst Denert-Stiftung and is headed by Professor Dr.
Florian Matthes.
The main research areas of sebis are Enterprise Architecture Management and Social Software
Engineering. In addition, Professor Matthes puts particular emphasis on knowledge transfer
from academia to industry. He is co-founder and chairman of CoreMedia (1996) and infoAsset (1999) with more than 180 employees, co-founder of further small software and service
university spin-os, as well as scientific advisor of UnternehmerTUM, the center of innovation
and business creation at Technische Universitat M
unchen.
Imprint & Copyright
Copyright: c 2014 sebis, Technische Universitat M
unchen
Publisher: epubli GmbH, Berlin, www.epubli.de
ISBN 978-3-8442-8938
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, archived, or transmitted in any form
by any means (electronical, mechanical, by photocopying, or otherwise) without prior written
permission of the publisher Technische Universitat M
unchen, sebis.
Version: 1.3 (March 20, 2014)
The latest version of this document is available at http://wwwmatthes.in.tum.de.
This publication can be cited as:
Roth, Sascha; Zec, Marin; Matthes, Florian: Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014. Technical Report. sebis, Technische Universit
at M
unchen. 2014.
Trademarks
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights or similar rights that
are mentioned, used or cited in this publication are the property of their respective owners.
Disclaimer
Please note that all the findings and conclusions are based on information from primary as
well as secondary sources. The validity of information contained in this document can not be
guaranteed.
Technische Universit
at M
unchen and sebis disclaim all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information contained in this report. Technische Universitat M
unchen
and sebis shall have no liability for errors, omissions, or inadequacies in the information and/or
interpretations contained in this report. In no event shall Technische Universitat M
unchen or
sebis be liable for any damage of any kind (e.g. direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages) whatsoever, including lost revenues or lost profits which may result
from use of information contained in this document. The reader assumes sole responsibility
for the selection and use of information contained in this document.
ii
Abstract
A major factor for successful Enterprise Architecture initiatives is continuous communication between dierent stakeholders. If used properly, visualizations are an eective means
of communication. In recent years, EA tools evolved from simple solutions for collecting
EA information and generating basic reports to more mature platforms providing users with
sophisticated features to configure and customize visualizations. However, EA tools dier considerably with respect to their visualization capabilities (e.g. supported visualization types,
import/export capabilities and support for customization).
This technical report sheds light on the state-of-the-art in EA visualizations and respective
tool support. It contains results from a two-part study in which we analyzed both the feature
set of 19 available EA tools from 18 vendors and actual usage patterns of 109 EA practitioners.
This report focuses on EA visualizations. However, aspects around configuration and the
information model are covered as well. We provide a synthesized collection of 26 visualization
types and assess the current tool support of these visualization types. This report contains
295 figures and screenshots of EA tools and comprehensive descriptions of their capabilities
illustrated in 248 tables.
Contents
Abstract
iii
I.
Enterprise Architecture Visualizations
1. Introduction
1.1. Related Studies on EA Tools . .
1.2. Intended Audience . . . . . . . .
1.3. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4. Structure of this Report . . . . .
1.5. Analyzed Enterprise Architecture
1.6. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Management Tools
. . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
. 4
. 6
. 8
. 8
. 9
. 10
2. A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function

12
2.1. An Iterative Approach to the Enterprise Architecture Management Function . 13
2.2. Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise Architecture . . . 14
3. Executive Summary
17
3.1. Visualization Types of the EA Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2. Configuration Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4. Methodology and Conceptual Framework
29
4.1. Design of the Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014 . . . . . . 30
4.2. Conceptual Framework for EA Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5. EA Visualization Types
5.1. Matrix/Table . . .
5.2. Cluster Map . . . .
5.3. Timeline . . . . . .
5.4. Flow Diagram . . .
iv
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
47
48
49
50
Contents
5.5. List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6. Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7. Entity-Relationship Diagram . . . . . . . . . .
5.8. Bar Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)
5.10. Unified Modeling Language . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11. Bubble Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.12. Tree View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.13. Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.14. Dashboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.15. Radar Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.16. Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) . . . . . . .
5.17. ArchiMate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.18. Line Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.19. Scatter Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.20. Geographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.21. Business Model Canvas . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.22. Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.23. Treemap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.24. Tag Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.25. 3D Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.26. Sunburst Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II. EA Tools and Vendor Profiles
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
6. ABACUS (Avolution)
6.1. Background Information . . . . . . .
6.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . .
6.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . .
6.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . .
6.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6. Visualization Examples of ABACUS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
76
77
78
79
80
82
7. ADOit (BOC AG)

7.1. Background Information . . . . .
7.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . .
7.3. Visualization Configuration . . .
7.4. Information Model . . . . . . . .
7.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . .
7.6. Visualization Examples of ADOit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
8. ALFABET (Software AG)

8.1. Background Information .
8.2. Visualization Capabilities
8.3. Configuration . . . . . . .
8.4. Information Model . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
114
115
116
117
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contents
8.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.6. Visualization Examples of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
9. BiZZdesign Architect (BiZZdesign)
9.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.6. Visualization Examples of BiZZdesign Architect .
10.Corporate Modeler Suite (Casewise)
10.6. Visualization Examples of Corporate
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Modeler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
. 134
. 135
. 136
. 137
. 138
. 140
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Suite
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
153
154
155
155
157
158
160
11.Enterprise Architect (SparxSystems Ltd)

11.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.6. Visualization Examples of Enterprise Architect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
165
. 166
. 167
. 168
. 169
. 170
. 172
12.Envision VIP (Future Tech Systems)

12.1. Background Information . . . . . .
12.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . .
12.3. Visualization Configuration . . . .
12.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . .
12.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . .
12.6. Visualization Examples of Envision
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
VIP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
177
178
179
179
181
182
184
13.iteraplan (iteratec)
13.6. Visualization Examples of iteraplan .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
193
. 194
. 195
. 196
. 197
. 198
. 200
14.Layer8 (Layer8-Solutions)
14.1. Background Information . .
14.2. Visualization Capabilities .
14.3. Visualization Configuration
14.4. Information Model . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
207
208
209
209
211
Contents
14.6. Visualization Examples of Layer8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
15.leanIX (LeanIX GmbH)
15.6. Visualization Examples of leanIX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
221
. 222
. 223
. 224
. 225
. 226
. 228
16.MEGA (MEGA International)

16.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . .
16.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.6. Visualization Examples of MEGA Architecture
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17.PowerDesigner (SAP AG)

17.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . .
17.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . .
17.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . .
17.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.6. Visualization Examples of PowerDesigner
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
235
236
237
237
239
240
242
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
253
. 254
. 255
. 255
. 257
. 258
. 260
18.process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH)

18.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.6. Visualization Examples of process4.biz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
265
266
267
268
269
270
272
19.QPR EnterpriseArchitect (QPR Software)

19.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.6. Visualization Examples of QPR EnterpriseArchitect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
279
. 280
. 281
. 282
. 283
. 284
. 286
20.Rational System Architect (IBM)

20.1. Background Information . . .
20.2. Visualization Capabilities . .
20.3. Visualization Configuration .
20.4. Information Model . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
299
300
300
302
vii
Contents
20.6. Visualization Examples of Rational System Architect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
21.SAMU Repository (Atoll Technologies Ltd)
21.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . .
21.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . .
21.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.6. Visualization Examples of SAMU Repository
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
307
. 308
. 309
. 309
. 311
. 312
. 314
22.Tricia (infoAsset AG)

22.6. Visualization Examples of Tricia
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
335
. 336
. 337
. 337
. 339
. 340
. 342
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23.Txture (QELaB Business Services GmbH)

23.1. Background Information . . . . . . . .
23.2. Visualization Capabilities . . . . . . .
23.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . .
23.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . .
23.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23.6. Visualization Examples of Txture . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
III. Market Demands and Trends
323
324
325
325
327
328
330
345
24.Characteristics of the Data Set

347
24.1. Information on the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
24.2. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
25.EA Expert Feedback Usage & Demands
25.1. EA Visualization Tools . . . . . . . . . .
25.2. Usage of Visualization Types . . . . . .
25.3. Update frequency of Visualization Types
25.4. Customization of Visualizations . . . . .
25.5. Export of Visualizations . . . . . . . . .
25.6. EA Information Model Adaptation . . .
25.7. Integration with Third Party Tools . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
352
. 353
. 354
. 355
. 355
. 357
. 358
. 358
26.Trends in EA Management and Tools

26.1. Increasing Variety . . . . . . . . . .
26.2. The Role of Standardized Notations
26.3. Major pain points of practitioners .
26.4. Feature list and improvements . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
viii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
361
362
362
362
366
Contents
27.Conclusion
370
27.1. Key observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
27.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
27.3. Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
A. Long List
375
Bibliography
393
ix
Part I.
Enterprise Architecture Visualizations
CHAPTER
Introduction
Contents
1.1. Related Studies on EA Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4. Structure of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5. Analyzed Enterprise Architecture Management Tools . . . . . . .
1.6. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The goal of Enterprise Architecture (EA) management is to align business with Information
Technology (IT) which is expected to gain strategic advantage over competitors because of
shorter reaction times and higher cost efficiency of frequent environmental changes in globalized markets. Thus, EA management requires a holistic view of the entire EA including
business capabilities, business processes, business services, applications, infrastructure services, platforms, databases, etc. EA information is commonly highly interlinked and thus can
also be regarded as a complex system of systems. In line with the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 42010 standard we define an EA as the fundamental organization
of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution. [ISO07]. To communicate EA
information and complex information in general [Sp01, Wa12], visualizations are a common
means and consequently play an important role in EA management. EA visualizations can
be used for various purposes. For instance, EA visualizations help to
communicate and analyze complex information,
promote stakeholder involvement, or
increase transparency.
To cope with the sheer amount of information, EA management commonly uses an EA repository to manage information. In the remainder of the present study we refer to these repositories as EA tools. Two major capabilities of EA tools are EA (information) model maintenance
and report generation. Reports often include EA visualizations or turn out to be visualizations
themselves.
This study contains a comprehensive analysis of current tool support for these visualizations.
The analysis covers not only visualization facilities as such but also model maintenance,
configuration, customization, generation, layouting and import/export capabilities. In the
next section we recap related studies briefly.
1.1. Related Studies on EA Tools

In the past, we conducted two EA management tool surveys in 2005 and 2008 respectively [MBL+ 08]. Back then, the EA tool market was perceived as emerging. Although,
recent technology trends [BBDF+ 12] have been identified in 2012 as well as challenges EA
management is facingh [HSR+ 13], our general hypothesis is that EA tools have advanced significantly: particularly when it comes to visualization capabilities. Practical implementation
of EA management functions are much more mature as well, .g. in terms of the maintained
information base [GMR12, FBH+ 13a]. Back in 2008, our EA tool evaluation was based on a
list of criteria and two sets of scenarios. The first set reflected rather technical scenarios such
as model data import, export and validation. The second set of scenarios reproduced various
typical EA management tasks such as landscape management or business object management. These essential EA management tasks were identified in collaboration with sponsors
and partners. The evaluation was carried out based on the simulation of the scenarios on a
illustrative case study which was based on the notional department store SoCaStore. This
way, we made sure to ensure consistency and continuity of the evaluation across all EA tools.
1. Introduction
Focus
Year
#
Vendors
EAMTS08
TEAMT
[MBL+ 08]
[BBDF+ 12]
The Forrester
Gartner 2013
Wave Q2 2013
[Fo13]
Scenario Based: Trend Study,

69 Criteria split
8 dimensions of Current and
by current oerfunctionality, 9 Future Scenarios ing, strategy and
EA management
market presence
tasks
of a vendor
EAVTS14
[Ga13]
Trend Study and
market segmentation in one of
the quadrants:
leaders, challengers, visionaries, and niche
players
Visualization,
Configuration,
and MetaModeling Capabilities
2008
2012
2013
2013
2014
None
10
14
18
Table 1.1.: Overview of tool surveys related to this study

The case study data and the underlying information model are described in more detail in
[MBL+ 08]. The first set of scenarios consisted of the following technical tasks:
Importing, editing, and validating model data,
Creating visualizations of the application landscape,
Interacting with and editing of visualizations of the application landscape,
Supporting lightweight access,
Editing model data using an external editor,
Adapting the information model,
Handling large scale application landscapes,
Supporting multiple users and collaborative work, and
Support for simulation in EA management.
The second set of scenarios consisted of the following managment tasks:
Landscape Management,
Demand Management,
Project Portfolio Management,
Synchronization Management,
Strategies and Goals Management,
Business Object Management,
SOA Transformation,
1. Introduction
IT Architecture Management, and
Infrastructure Management.
In [MBL+ 08], each of the scenarios is introduced in the same way. First, a short motivation
for the specific task is provided. Then, goals are described. Finally, examples of associated
deliverables were presented.
Recently, Forrester Research analyzed 10 Enterprise Architecture Management Suites
(EAMS) in the The Forrester Wave: Enterprise Architecture Management Suites [Fo13].
In Forresters 69-criteria evaluation of EAMS vendors, we [Forrester Research]
identified the 10 most significant software providers based on breadth of EA coverage and ability to fulfill four common EA objectives alfabet, Avolution, BOC
Group, Casewise, EAS, IBM, Mega International, OpenText, Software AG, and
Troux Technologies and researched, analyzed, and scored them.
The study is based on empirical results from 30 interviews in enterprises which use an EA tool
and 10 interviews with tool vendors. In the final part of the study, Forrester Research mentions
additional vendors that are included in the present study: Atoll Technologies, BiZZdesign,
iteratec, and Future Tech Systems.
Gartner Research [Ga13] conducts another major EA tool market study annually. While
Gartner included 15 EA tools in 2012 [Ga12], only 14 EA tools have been included in 2013
[Ga13].
The research focus varies among related studies. In [MBL+ 08] we evaluated typical scenarios
that have to be accomplished when pursuing an EA management endeavor. Other studies
focus on trends [BBDF+ 12], position vendors in the EA tool market [Ga12, Ga13, Fo13], or
detail technical capabilities [KS13].
In the present study, we analyze oerings of 18 vendors in the EA tool market. We cover a
major portion of Gartners Magic Quadrants 2012 and 2013 as well as most of the vendors
considered in Forrester Researchs study [Fo13]. Table 1.1 provides an overview of the relationship between the present study and previous studies of EA tools. In addition to the
vendors analyzed by Gartner, Forrester and in our EAMMTS2008, we include some niche
players.
We conclude this section by giving a concrete overview of Vendors and Tools that are subject
of analysis in the dierent studies on EA tools. Table 1.2 gives a more detailed view which
illustrates which vendors and tools have been analyzed by the dierent studies. As depicted,
we included the major players in the market and some niche players we regarded worthwhile
to have a look at. Although invited to participate, Troux Technologies and QualiWare have
decided not to participate in our study.
1.2. Intended Audience

The primary target audience of this technical report are EA practitioners such as C-level
executives, strategic enterprise architects, portfolio managers, consultants or analysts. In
addition, we consider EA tool vendors and EA researchers as secondary target audience.
Vendor
EAMTS08 [MBL+ 08]
Gartner 2012 [Ga12]
Gartner 2013 [Ga13]
Forrester 2013 [Fo13]
EAVTS14
1. Introduction
ABACUS (Avolution)
adaptive EAM (adaptive Inc.)
ADOit (BOC AG)
ARIS (Software AG)
BiZZdesign EA Tool Suite (BiZZdesign)
Corporate Modeler Suite (Casewise)
Essential Project (EAS)
Embarcadero EA/Studio (Embarcadero Technologies

Inc.)
Enterprise Architect (SparxSystems Ltd)
Envision VIP (Future Tech Systems)
iteraplan (iteratec GmbH)
Layer8 (Layer8-Solutions GbR)
leanIX (LeanIX GmbH)
MEGA (MEGA International)
OpenText (OpenText Corp.)
planningIT (Software AG)
PowerDesigner (Sybase/SAP AG)
process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und

Vertriebs GmbH)
QPR EnterpriseArchitect (QPR Software)
QualiWare Enterprise Architecture (QualiWare)
Rational System Architect (IBM)
SAMU Repository (Atoll Technologies Ltd)
Troux (Troux Technologies)
Txture (QELaB Business Services GmbH)
MetaStorm is now OpenText, i.e. the analysis contained in the study focuses on ProVision by Metastorm.
b Telelogic has been acquired by IBM, i.e. the analysis contained in the study focuses on the System Architect by Telelogic
AB.
Table 1.2.: Overview of tools that are subject of analysis in the respective surveys
1. Introduction
This report describes the results of our most recent research project which was concerned
with the state-of-the-art in EA visualizations and their tool support. It contains observations
we made in the course of two surveys. The first survey was targeted at EA tool vendors and
collected comprehensive information on tool capabilities. The goal of the second survey was
to assess which usage patterns and demands are widespread in practice. The overall goal of
our study was to investigate the level of alignment between demand (i.e. EA visualization use
cases in practice) and oerings (i.e. EA tool visualization capabilities) in the EA domain.
1.3. Contributions
We consider this report to be useful for EA practitioners, EA tool vendors as well as EA
researchers for various reasons. It serves EA practitioners as
an overview of EA visualizations supported by EA tools,
a source of ideas about the use of visualization types for specific stakeholders,
a frame of reference and basis for buying decisions for an EA tool.
Vendors get insights into actual usage of visualization types among various practitioners. EA
tool vendors get
a comprehensive competitor and market analysis,
ideas about which visualization types are used for which stakeholders,
a list of pain points and possible features.
White spots identified may serve as starting points for further research eorts in the field.
Researchers get
an overview of widely accepted visualization types,
respective tool support,
their actual usage (popularity) in practice, and
insights into market demands in terms of desired visualization types and EA tool features.
1.4. Structure of this Report

This document is split into three parts. It contains 295 figures and 248 tables.
Part I contains an executive summary, presents our methodology, and introduces the visualization types identified in the course of the study.
Part II consists of 18 EA tool profiles providing details about tool capabilities. The profile
is presented in a tabular format to facilitate readability and comparison.
1. Introduction
Part III reports survey results from our analysis based on the information reported by 109
practitioners.
This document features an organized index structure and can be browsed in dierent ways.
While a written document has linear character, we tried to provide the reader with two major
entry points to read this document. The two major approaches to navigate within this report
are:
Tool by visualization type, i.e. the reader wants to learn how dierent tools implement
a particular visualization type
Visualization type by tool, i.e. the reader wants to learn more about all the visualization
types which are supported by a specific tool
The index starts at page 397. This structure is also reflected in the executive summary in
Chapter 3 and facilitated by referring to the relevant pages that illustrate how the respective
visualization type is implemented in the respective tool.
A color-coded thumb index for quick access is provided such that dierent tools can be
compared more easily.
1.5. Analyzed Enterprise Architecture Management Tools

ABACUS (Avolution)
ADOit (BOC AG)
ARIS (Software AG)
process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH)
1. Introduction
1.6. Acknowledgment
We thank the tool vendors for their participation in our study. In alphabetical order, our
thanks go to:
Atoll Technologies Ltd
Avolution
BiZZdesign
BOC AG
Casewise
Future Tech Systems
IBM
infoAsset AG
iteratec
Layer8-Solutions GbR
LeanIX GmbH
MEGA International
process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH
QELaB Business Services GmbH
QPR Software
Software AG
SparxSystems Ltd
Sybase/SAP AG
Moreover, we thank all practitioners who participated in our survey for their valuable contributions, feedback and insights into actual usage of EA visualizations in practice. In alphabetical order our thanks go to: act! consulting GmbH, Adaptive, Inc., adidas AG, BayernLB,
BBGG - Berlin Business Group GmbH, Business Engineering Group, Cardcenter, Carl Zeiss
AG, Cobb Systems Group, Dr. Nink IT Consulting, eda.c, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit
at
Jena, Golsoft, HCL, Hermes Europe GmbH, IRM Business Innovation AB, Kanton Aargau,
Konsit, KVB, LEONI AG, Macmillan, Ministry of Justice, Nokia Siemens Networks, NTT
DATA, Polizei Niedersachsen, Real IRM Solutions, Sanacorp GmbH, SCHUFA Holding AG,
SMART360, Systematics, T-Systems International GmbH, Universitat Mannheim, W
ustenrot
& W
urttembergische AG, Zumtobel AG
10
CHAPTER
A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function
Contents
2.1. An Iterative Approach to the Enterprise Architecture Management Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2. Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11

Over the past decades, EA management gained momentum and may be considered a commonly accepted means to increase the mutual alignment of both business and IT nowadays.
Many dierent EA frameworks evolved throughout the past years. Well-known examples of
EA frameworks are Zachman [Za87] and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) [Th11].
2.1. An Iterative Approach to the Enterprise Architecture

Management Function
Figure 2.1 illustrates an iterative process to the EA management function. It includes essential
steps of EA management, generated artifacts, relevant stakeholders as well as the relationship
between practitioners and researchers.
Practitioner
Top management
Business
and IT
strategy
Top management
Visualizations
Business
stakeholders
model
Strategy office
Business owners
Metrics
Business
and org.
constraints
collect
motivate
EA Team
adapt
Application owners
IT operations
Individual
architecture
aspects
reflect
Reports
Purchasing
Software
development
IT operations
Architecture
blueprints
Architectureapproval and
requirements
Architecture
changes
Project managers
Software developers
Software architects
Synthesize/Evaluate
Synthesize/Evaluate
Best-practice Building Blocks

Goals
Information
Models
Visualization
Types
EA
Stakeholders
Tool
Capabilities
Research
Figure 2.1.: Iterative Process of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function
In a first step, the EA model is conceptualized and initial data is gathered. Prior to the
actual modeling and data collection, consideration of social aspects is of major importance.
For instance, we find repeatedly that support by top management is a crucial success factor
for EA management. The strategy office may provide a business and IT strategy that can
serve as a starting point for EA management, focusing on aligning business and IT strategy.
12

Next to top management support, stakeholder buy-in and proactive stakeholder engagement
are of utmost importance. Not only business and application owners but also more technical
sta such as IT operations should be counted among EA stakeholders. Ideally, each individual
aspect is reflected by the conceptualization of the entire EA. A common pitfall is over-modeling
of the EA: the attempt to capture each and every detail in the EA model. To avoid this antipattern, the focus should be on the most important aspects that generate value.
In a second step, the EA team should show the turnover for each individual stakeholder.
While EA management is meant to realize mid- to long-term goals, it is important to justify
intermediate costs for EA management. The EA model as well as its usefulness for the organization as a whole and for individual members of the organization should be communicated
and explained explicitly. Artifacts such as reports containing metrics or visualizations play
an important role in this communication process. It is important to involve stakeholders at
all levels, i.e. top management, business stakeholders, software developers, IT operations, solution architects, project managers, etc. The EA team might support stakeholders in solving
their individual challenges such that the information collection is justified.
In a third step, the EA management function as well as organizational processes may have
to be adjusted in response to the feedback gathered in the second step. Given a new basis
of information, the EA team reflects on the EA management function and may propose
changes to processes. For instance, architectural changes could require an approval by the
EA management team which in turn might have a finite (and shared) set or requirements for
the EA or individual solution architectures.
While EA practitioners seek to align business with IT to increase flexibility and respond to
an ever changing environment, EA research designs new artifacts, i.e. frameworks, methods,
techniques, etc. This is done by analyzing and consolidating best practices, creating artifacts
from scratch and evaluating developed designs in practice. Proven and tested solutions are
maintained in the body of knowledge. The present study focuses on visualization types and
tool capabilities.
2.2. Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise

Architecture
Organization & Processes

Compliance
Security
Principles & Standards
Strategies & Projects
Questions & KPIs
Visions & Goals
Business Capabilities
Business Services
Applications & Information
Infrastructure Services
Infrastructure & Databases
Figure 2.2.: Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise Architecture [Wi07, BEG+ 12]
13

Figure 2.2 illustrates a holistic conceptual view on an EA. It starts bottom-up with infrastructure & databases, e.g. networks, routers, server farms, etc. Those infrastructure elements are
provided as infrastructure services to an upper layer, where applications & information are
used to provide business services. Business services are building blocks for business processes.
They can be rearranged to create new business processes. Business capabilities describe core
competencies whereas the organizational structure is designed to execute business processes
as efficiently and eectively as possible. Various cross-cutting aspects influence the aforementioned layers. A common vision is used to derive goals that are measured in key performance
indicators (KPIs). On all introduced levels, strategies and projects drive change that is guided
by corporate principles and standards with respect to external factors like compliance and
security. In EA management, a primary goal is to meet the right information demands of
involved stakeholders. Those are manifold and could refer to the entire EA or parts thereof
(cf. Figure 2.2). An analysis of approaches for gathering EA information, e.g. the current
state of the application landscape, reveals a high degree of manual eort, e.g. interviews with
information stewards, resulting in an error-prone and time-consuming task. With increasing
requirements on flexibility, agility, etc., recent approaches are not able to meet current challenges, in particular since there is a constantly growing information volume and little chance
to determine the right information and the right quality.
14
CHAPTER
Executive Summary
Contents
3.1. Visualization Types of the EA Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2. Configuration Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.1. Customization of visual parameters and layouting . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.2.2. Information Model Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.2.3. Information Model Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
In this chapter we summarize the results of this report. First, we provide an overview of
the study design. Then, we provide summaries of the subsequent chapters. Please familiarize yourself with the characteristics of the underlying empirical data and study design to
interpret our analysis reasonably and estimate the relevance for your particular situation (cf.
Chapter 24 and Section 27.2).
The present report contains our analysis of an extensive study and survey. The study was
carried out in two phases. In the first phase, we surveyed EA tool vendors. The goal of this
phase was to find out which
visualization,
configuration, and
adaptation capabilities
EA tools currently provide.
Our analysis covers the following EA management tools:
ABACUS (Avolution)
ADOit (BOC AG)
15
ARIS (Software AG)
We concluded the first phase by consolidating the data collected and synthesizing necessary
information for the second phase (i.e. list of visualization types).
The goal of the second phase was to understand current EA practices, market demands and
identify trends. We asked EA practitioners which of the features provided by current EA
tools they are actually using or planning to use. Having the information captured what the
EA tools and the EA tool market currently oers, we asked EA practitioners what they are
actually applying, plan to apply and do not apply in practice. In addition, we asked the
practitioners to provide us with information about their pain points, hints for improvements
and missing features (cf. Chapter 26). We put focus on:
visualization types EA practitioners (plan to) use,
how they (plan to) configure visualizations,
how they (plan to) adapt visualizations,
how they (plan to) adapt the information model,
if and how they (plan to) integrate their EA tool with other tools.
16
p. 83
p. 83
p. 84
p. 84
p. 85
p. 85
p. 86
p. 86
p. 87
p. 87
p. 88
p. 88
p. 89
p. 89
p. 90
p. 90
p. 91
p. 91
p. 92
p. 92
p. 93
Timeline (p. 49)
Flow Diagram (p. 50)
List (p. 51)
Graph (p. 52)
ER Diagram (p. 53)
Bar Chart (p. 54)
BPMN Diagram (p. 55)
UML Diagram (p. 56)
Bubble Chart (p. 57)
Treeview (p. 58)
Pie Chart (p. 59)
Dashboard (p. 60)
Radar Diagram (p. 61)
EPC Diagram (p. 62)
ArchiMate Diagram (p. 63)
Line Chart (p. 64)
Scatter Chart (p. 65)
Geographic Map (p. 66)
Business Model Canvas (p. 67)
Gauges (p. 68)
Treemap (p. 69)
ADOit (p. 96)
p. 111
p. 111
p. 110
p. 110
p. 109
p. 109
p. 108
p. 108
p. 107
p. 107
p. 106
p. 106
p. 105
p. 105
p. 104
p. 104
p. 103
p. 103
p. 102
p. 102
ALFABET (p. 114)
BiZZdesign Architect (p. 134)
p. 190
p. 189
p. 189
p. 188
p. 188
p. 187
p. 187
p. 186
p. 186
p. 185
p. 185
p. 184
p. 184
p. 151
p. 150
17
iteraplan (p. 194)

p. 206
p. 205d
p. 205
p. 204
p. 204
p. 203
p. 203
p. 202
p. 202
p. 201
p. 201
p. 200
p. 200
Layer8 (p. 208)

p. 220
p. 220
p. 219
p. 219
p. 218
p. 218
p. 217
p. 217
p. 216
p. 216
p. 215
p. 215
p. 214
p. 214
leanIX (p. 222)

p. 233
p. 232
p. 232
p. 231
p. 231
p. 230
p. 230
p. 229
p. 229
p. 228
p. 228
MEGA (p. 236)

p. 252
p. 252
p. 251
p. 251
p. 250
p. 250
p. 249
p. 249
p. 248
p. 248
p. 247
p. 247
p. 246
p. 246
p. 245
p. 245
p. 244
p. 244
p. 243
p. 243
p. 242
p. 242
PowerDesigner (p. 254)

p. 264
p. 264
p. 263
p. 263
p. 262
p. 262
p. 261
p. 261
p. 260
p. 260
process4.biz (p. 266)

p. 278
p. 278
p. 277
p. 277
p. 276
p. 276
p. 275
p. 275
p. 274
p. 274
p. 273
p. 273
p. 272
p. 272
p. 295c
p. 293
p. 294c
p. 294c
p. 293
p. 292c
p. 292c
p. 291
p. 291c
p. 290
p. 290
p. 289
p. 289c
p. 288
p. 288
p. 287
p. 286
p. 287c
p. 286
QPR EnterpriseArchitect (p. 280)
Rational System Architect (p. 298)

p. 306
p. 306
p. 305
p. 305
Table 3.1.: Index to Examples of Visualization Types Supported by EA Tools
p. 192
p. 191
p. 191
p. 176
p. 176
p. 175
p. 175
p. 174
p. 174
p. 173
p. 173
p. 172
p. 172
p. 190
p. 164
p. 163
p. 163
p. 162
p. 162
p. 161
p. 161
p. 160
p. 160
Corporate Modeler Suite (p. 154)
p. 131a
p. 150
p. 149
p. 149
p. 148
p. 148
p. 147
p. 147
p. 146
p. 146
p. 145
p. 145
p. 144
p. 144
p. 143
p. 143
p. 142
p. 142
p. 141
p. 141
p. 140
p. 140
Envision VIP (p. 178)
p. 130b
p. 130a
p. 129a
p. 129a
p. 128b
p. 128a
p. 127a
p. 127b
p. 126a
p. 126a
p. 125a
p. 125a
p. 124b
p. 124b
p. 123a
p. 123a
p. 122a
p. 122a
p. 121a
p. 121a
p. 120a
p. 120a
Enterprise Architect (p. 166)
3D Visualization (p. 71)

p. 94
p. 164
a
According to Software AG, this visualization type is supported best with planningIT.
b According to Software AG, this visualization type is supported best with ARIS.
c This visualization type is only provided by the QPR metrics add-on.
d This visualization type is only provided by the ITM Analytics add-on of iteraplan.
Sunburst (p. 72)
p. 93
p. 82
Cluster Map (p. 48)
Tag Cloud (p. 70)
p. 82
ABACUS (p. 76)
Matrix (p. 47)
Visualization Type
SAMU Repository (p. 308)

p. 322
p. 321
p. 321
p. 320
p. 320
p. 319
p. 319
p. 318
p. 318
p. 317
p. 317
p. 316
p. 316
p. 315
p. 315
p. 314
p. 314
Tricia (p. 324)

p. 334
p. 333
p. 333
p. 332
p. 332
p. 331
p. 331
p. 330
p. 330
Txture (p. 336)

p. 343
p. 342
p. 342
Binding
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
ABACUS (p. 76)
Loose Coupling
Schema Binding
Data Filter
Other
model based
Form based
Scripting
Manual drawing
Other
3a,b
3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Table 3.2.: Information model binding and approach to create a visualization
3
3
a,b
a,b
3a,b
a,b
3a,b
ALFABET (p. 114)
According to Software AG, this feature is supported by planningIT.

b According to Software AG, this feature is supported by ARIS.
ADOit (p. 96)
18
Approach
Capability
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
Parameters
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automatic
Manual
Other
Color
Orientation
ABACUS (p. 76)
3a
3a,b 3
3
a,b
3a,b 3
a,b
3
a,b
ALFABET (p. 114)
3a,b 3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Table 3.3.: Customization of visual parameters and layouting

Layout
ADOit (p. 96)
Caption
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
19
Import
Other
7
3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Table 3.4.: Configuration Import/Export Summary
3
3
3a,b 3
3
a,b
ALFABET (p. 114)

ODBC
JSON
CSV
TXT
Other
TXT
XLS(X)
XLS(X)
XML
XMI
ODBC
XML
JSON
CSV
ABACUS (p. 76)
XMI
ADOit (p. 96)
20
Export
File Format
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
Import
3
3
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
7
3
ABACUS (p. 76)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
CSV
JSON
TXT
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
ALFABET (p. 114)
7
3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Table 3.5.: Data Import/Export Summary
3
a,b
7
3
3
7
3a,b 3
3
a,b
3
a,b
3a,b 3
3
3
a,b
a,b
3a,b 3
3a,b 3

Export
ADOit (p. 96)
File Format
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
21
Import
Other
ALFABET (p. 114)
3a
3
b
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
Table 3.6.: Schema Import/Export
3
7

TXT
JSON
CSV
OData
Other
OData
XLS(X)
XLS(X)
XML
XMI
TXT
XML
JSON
CSV
ABACUS (p. 76)
XMI
ADOit (p. 96)
22
Export
File Format
MEGA (p. 236)
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
23
3
Configurable building blocks
User defines the schema
Sub-classing/inheritance
3
a,b
3a,b 3
Table 3.7.: Schema Setup and Configuration

ABACUS (p. 76)
Full schema
ADOit (p. 96)
ALFABET (p. 114)
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
Import
Other
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ABACUS (p. 76)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ALFABET (p. 114)
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
iteraplan (p. 194)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Layer8 (p. 208)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
leanIX (p. 222)
Table 3.8.: Concepts that can be imported/exported

Roles
Access rights
Attribute values (instances of attributes)
Attributes (part of the schema of classes)
Relationships (schema of objects)
Objects (instances of classes)
Classes (schema of objects)
Other
Roles
Access rights
Attribute values (instances of attributes)
Attributes (part of the schema of classes)
Relationships (schema of objects)
Objects (instances of classes)
Classes (schema of objects)
ADOit (p. 96)
24
Export
Concept
MEGA (p. 236)
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Tricia (p. 324)
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
Txture (p. 336)
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
3
Direction
Category of Tool
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ABACUS (p. 76)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pull
Other
Business Intelligence Tools
Business Process Engines
Change Management Tools
Cloud Services
Configuration Management Database
Enterprise Service Bus
Infrastructure Monitoring Tools
License/IT Asset Management Tools
Project Portfolio Management Tools
Release Management Tools
Other
3
3
3
7
3a
3
3
3a
3
a,b
ALFABET (p. 114)
3a,b 3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
MEGA (p. 236)
Table 3.9.: Interoperability Support of EA tools for Third Party Applications Summary

ADOit (p. 96)
Push
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
25
3
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
ABACUS (p. 76)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
DoDAF
IAF
MODAF
NAF
PEAF
TOGAF
Zachman
Other
3a,b
3
iteraplan (p. 194)
Layer8 (p. 208)
leanIX (p. 222)
Table 3.10.: Supported EA Frameworks
3
3
a,b
3
7
a,b
3b
3
a,b
3b
3b
ALFABET (p. 114)

ADOit (p. 96)
26
ArchiMate
Framework
MEGA (p. 236)
Tricia (p. 324)
Txture (p. 336)
CHAPTER
Methodology and Conceptual Framework
Contents
4.1. Design of the Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey
2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
First Phase: EA Tool Vendor Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Second Phase: EA Practitioner Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Additional Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4.2. Conceptual Framework for EA Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Deployment Approach and Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
EA (modeling) Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Visualization Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
View-driven approach to EA modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Export formats for visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Creating and Configuring a Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Setting-up and Adapting the EA Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Data Import
40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27

In this chapter, we present the methodology applied in this study and subsequently describe
our conceptual framework to provide the reader with a common terminology.
4.1. Design of the Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool

Survey 2014
Our study has been carried out in two phases, each consisting of multiple steps:
1. an EA Tool Vendor Survey among 18 market players and
2. an EA Practitioner Survey among 109 EA experts.
Example
Visualizations
EA Tool Vendor
Survey
Analysis and
Consolidation of
Answers
Visualization
Types
Identify
Visualization
Types
Editing initial
Draft for the EA
Tool Profiles
EA Practitioner
Survey
Market
Demands
EA Tool Profiles
Examples for each

Visualization Type
Approval of the
Tool Profile by
Vendor
Sample for the

Visualization
Types
Editing the
Visualization
Types
Coding of Answers
Analysis and
Consolidation of
Answers
Editing the Survey

Results
EA Visualization
Tool Survey
2014
Usage
Figure 4.1.: Underlying Method of the EA Visualization Tool Survey 2014

Figure 4.1 shows the steps that we carried out towards developing the present report.
First Phase: EA Tool Vendor Survey

In the first phase, we conducted an online survey among EA tool vendors. In July 2013, we
invited over 50 EA tool vendors to participate in our survey. The long list of tool vendors
can be found in Appendix A.
Thereby, we intended to get an overview of the current state-of-the-art in EA visualizations.
On the one hand, this includes an overview of visualization types EA tools currently support.
On the other hand visualization types that are planned for future releases are in the scope
of the present study as well. Another important point that does not directly address EA
visualizations is the flexibility and adaptability of the EA information model. We investigated
the configuration capabilities of EA tools in particular.
28

The goal of the EA Tool Vendor Survey was to get an overview of the current capabilities of
EA tools with a particular focus on
supported visualization types,
end-user configuration of visualizations and binding to a model,
adaptation of the information model, and
interoperability with other tools.
We asked the tool vendors to provide us with example visualizations and answer an online
questionnaire that focuses on dierent aspects of EA tool capabilities. In a second step, we
analyzed and consolidated the results rigorously. We received a broad variety of visualization
types as well as slight variations. In multiple iterations, over 1000 visualizations were clustered
into dierent groups. We discussed the assignments of the visualizations to the clusters in 4
sessions involving 3 researchers and a graduate student. The large variety of visualizations has
been a challenge. Especially when two visualization types are obviously mixed together, one
could argue that they make up a potential third visualization type. For instance, Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2.: Mixed visualization types: Graph and Cluster

shows a cluster which can (visually) be considered to be a graph at the same time.
Next to this initial analysis, we carefully considered which abstract visualization types stick
out (i.e. have distinct visual properties). In total, we identified 26 distinct visualization types.
We created a conceptual profile for each identified type which served as input for the second
phase (i.e. practitioner survey).
We began preparing the tool profiles and 26 visualization types for the report and started
conducting the second survey targeted at EA practioners concurrently. In the next step,
we handcrafted three documents to facilitate the tool profile reviews by the vendors. These
documents were
a frame of reference for the terminology to ensure consistency among answers of dierent
vendors,
29

a compilation of the 26 visualization types we extracted, and
an initial draft of the tool profile which contained the information provided by the
respective vendor in the preceding survey.
In the next step, we sent out those documents to each tool vendor and requested
high quality/resolution examples for each supported visualization type,
a review of the tool profile draft, and
permission for scientific publication of the material provided (screenshots and answers
to the questionnaire).
In parallel to handcrafting the documents mentioned above, we prepared a survey that should
reveal the interest, usage behavior, and market demands of EA experts. For this survey, the
26 visualization types were ordered by the expected usage frequency based on our experience
and integrated into the survey.
Second Phase: EA Practitioner Survey

In the second phase, we conducted another online survey. This time, we targeted industry
experts currently involved in EA management. The aim of this second survey was to
find out which visualization types are currently used in practice or are planned to be
used,
understand typical usage scenarios of the EA visualization types,
potentially find new visualization types used in industry,
and identify market demands.
More than 1200 survey invitations were sent out to EA practitioners in November 2013.
The survey was accessible for three weeks. We received 109 complete answers from 330
participants in total ( 77% dropout). The survey has been designed to take approximately
30 to 40 minutes, the actual duration depended on the concrete organizational context. We
asked the practitioners for each of the 26 visualization types whether they
currently use,
plan to use, or
do not use,
the respective visualization type. We assumed that drawing and presentation tools are used
to create EA visualizations in practice. Therefore, participants were asked to upload examples
of visualization types that were not represented in our collection of 26 visualization types.
Besides visualization types usage, we asked several questions focusing on
generation and configuration of visualizations,
adaptation of the EA information model, and
30

integration of other tools as information sources.
Additional Design Considerations

Each survey has been pre-tested by multiple researchers who have not been involved in the
survey design process. In the area of EA visualizations, a common reference architecture is
missing [SMR12]. As a consequence, we provided tool vendors with a frame of reference which
is introduced in Section 4.2. It was presented in the introduction to the survey to ensure a
common understanding and to be able to compare answers across the vendors. Each tool
vendor representative confirmed that (s)he has fully understood the conceptual framework.
4.2. Conceptual Framework for EA Visualizations

In line with Wittenburg [Wi07] and Schaub et al. [SMR12] Figure 4.3 presents a simplified conceptual framework for model-driven EA visualizations which we observed in practice
multiple times.
Figure 4.3.: Conceptual framework for model-driven EA visualizations

We distinguish between visualization types, information model, and configuration. The configuration specifies the link between a concrete visualization and the underlying EA information
model. Hence, we will introduce the terms visualization type and information model first and
configuration second.
31

Information Model. The information model (schema) is a conceptual representation of the EA
model (data). It describes entities, their attributes as well as their relationships among
each other. EA tool support for EA information models dier from tool to tool. Some
tools provide fixed schemas, other tools support flexible schemas. While some tools
make default EA schemas available, others require to develop an EA information model
from scratch.
Visualization Types. The visualization type layer contains a set of finite visual variants an
EA can be represented in. While early developments did not abstract from the used
information model, a separation between model and visualization took place which more
often than not also is facilitated by configuration mechanisms.
Configuration. The configuration layer defines binding of EA information model entities (i.e.
data) to a specific visualization type. EA tools may provide various methods to define
bindings such as configuration wizards or scripting languages. Configuration options
may include aspects such as complex data processing using pipes and filters, customization of visual primitives or fine-grained control over layout algorithms.
As depicted in Figure 4.3, importing and exporting is generally possible in each layer. Import
and export capabilities primarily serve for pre- and/or post-processing of data using dierent
software tools, information exchange and backups.
For visualizations, an import of a visualization primarily serves the propagation of visual
changes to respective underlying data. Exporting a visualization on the other hand may
serve to capture temporary EA plans developed in a workshop, to be included in an executive
presentation or being processed by another tool such as image editing software.
Further, configurations of visualizations that are generated employing model-driven paradigms
can be exported. Sharing such a configuration can be useful since the visualizations are updated automatically. While an exchange of visualization exports do not embrace the configuration and thus do not get updated instantly, exchanging the configuration empowers the
receiving party to recreate the visualization with up-to-date data. Moreover, this export and
import mechanisms can be used to store and restore (backup) configurations.
In terms of import and export mechanisms provided in the EA information model layer, it is
important to distinguish between schema and data. If an EA tool does not provide adequate
import/export mechanisms, the possibility of a vendor lock-in has to be considered.
Besides the dierent layers introduced above, Figure 4.3 depicts connections between the
dierent layers.
Schema Binding: The schema binding describes the binding between concepts of the EA information model and a visualization type. The schema binding is usually part of the
configuration and may either be defined by the user or hard coded in the EA management tool.
Example: let all business applications be represented as rectangles.
Data Filter: Visualizations are usually easier to process if they show relevant information only.
Hence, filtering the EA information using data filters to reduce visual complexity is a
commonly desired feature among practitioners.
32

Example: visualize all business processes owned by Peter Higgins.
Visual Parametrization: A specific set of customizations can be applied by configuring visual
variability points of a visualization type which change its appearance.
Example: rectangles have rounded corners with radius of 5 pixels.
Deployment Approach and Platforms

Sometimes decisions for or against a specific tool depend on a particular form of deployment
or platform. In our study we distinguish between the following deployment approaches:
Desktop installation,
Client-Server installation, and
Software as a Service (SaaS).
Further, we asked the tool vendor which of the following client platforms are supported.
Windows, i.e. a desktop application or fat-client running as either in 32-bit or 64-bit
native application,
Linux, i.e. a desktop application or fat-client running in the X Window System (X11),
MacOS, i.e. a desktop application or fat-client application that runs on a Mac,
Browser-based, i.e. a client-server based solution using browser technology, and
Java-based, i.e. an application (desktop or client-server) running on the Java Virtual
Machine.
The latter two imply cross-platforms compatibility (given a state-of-the-art browser or the
Java Virtual Machine, respectively). In this study, we did not analyze the support for particular browsers. However, practitioners should make sure that their browser is supported when
evaluating a particular EA tool.
Mobile is another trend we currently see. Therefore, we wanted to learn more about support
for mobile devices. We asked the tool vendors whether they oer native mobile applications
for the major mobile platforms as of today.
Android,
iOS, and
Windows Mobile
33
EA (modeling) Frameworks
EA frameworks play an important role in the eorts to understand and standardize EA
management. This commonly includes methods as well as models or model building block
that can be applied in practice. Two well-known examples for EA frameworks are Zachman
and TOGAF. Some of these frameworks are shipped with a particular information model. We
asked the tool vendors which of the following EA frameworks or modeling approaches their
tools support:
The France DGA Architecture Framework (AGATE),
ArchiMate,
Building-blocks for Enterprise Architecture Management Solutions (BEAMS),
The US Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF),
Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM),
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS) Group,
Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF),
Information FrameWork (IFW),
The UK Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF),
The NATO Architecture Framework (NAF),
The Pragmatic EA Framework (PEAF),
Quasar Enterprise,
TOGAF, and
Zachman.
For this and some other questions, the EA tool vendors were provided with the option to
choose other to express that they support additional features. This accounts for the fact
that the list of EA frameworks or other features and characteristics we provided to choose
from are not considered to be exhaustive.
Licensing
Manifold licensing options are available in the EA tool market such as:
Client licenses, i.e. for each client that uses the EA tool a fee is paid,
SaaS leasing, i.e. the EA tool is hosted by the vendor or a third party, or
Cloud deployment, i.e. the EA tool is deployed in a cloud.
In practice, combinations of these approaches are common and we found a broad variety of
licensing options.
34
Visualization Type
One central concept of the present report is the notion of visualization type. EA information
models are arbitrary and highly customized in general. Consequently, visualizations are used
to display a broad and unpredictable range of information. This is why we abstracted from
concrete visualizations in order to compare EA tools as well as practitioner demands in a
consistent manner. In the context of this study, we define a visualization type as a reoccurring
visual layout that can be used for dierent contexts.
We asked tool vendors which visualization types they currently support and whether they
planned to implement additional types in the future (cf. Chapter 4).
View-driven approach to EA modeling

As of today, we find that the common approach to EA management is to collect the information first and then generate an adequate visualization. However, the other way around is also
possible. One can create visualizations first, possibly with stub or dummy data, and extract
the information demand based on the information necessary to generate this visualizations
afterwards.
Export formats for visualizations

Often, visualizations are externalized, i.e. sent via mail or printed as a huge poster to be
pinned up at the wall. Therefore, a common need is the possibility to export the visualization
to a standard file format.
Vector formats:
Rasterized formats:
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)
Bitmap (BMP)
Microsoft
D/VSDX)
(VS-
Joint Photographic Experts Group

(JPG/JPEG)
Microsoft Powerpoint Format (PPT/PPTX)
Portable Network Graphics (PNG)
Visio
Format
Portable Document Format (PDF)
Portable Document Format (PDF)
Creating and Configuring a Visualization

First, we wanted to find out whether bindings to information are hard-coded or loosely coupled. The latter describes the ability to employ a certain visualization type to display arbitrary
model elements in an EA information model.
This can be realized using
schema bindings or
filter bindings.
35

The former describes the binding of a visualization type to instances of a particular class,
attributes relationships, etc. The latter describes the filtering of an existing schema binding
by attribute values or customized formulas.
Creating a visualization
The creation of a visualization can be implemented in multiple ways. We asked tool vendors
which of the following approaches they support:
Model-driven,
Form based,
Scripting, or
Manual drawing.
The model-driven approach refers to visualizations that are generated based on data binding
to a given information model.
The form based approach refers to a wizard which guides the user through the configuration
and generation process of a particular visualization type.
Scripting subsumes special purpose languages, so-called domain specific languages (DSL) that
are used to program (i.e. script) a visualization.
Manual drawings are from a visual perspective the most powerful and flexible way
to display information since every aspect can be drawn manually. At the same time, this
approach tends to be very time consuming.
Visual Parameters
We asked the vendors which visual customization their tool oers. We were interested in
customization capabilities for the following parameters:
Font,
Color,
Orientation,
Position,
Shape, and
Size.
36

Layouting
Although model-driven approaches commonly employ an automated layouting, manually layouting is generally still possible. Manual drawing approaches are usually combined with
manual layouting mechanisms. However, the possibility to align objects to a specified reference is supported often, e.g. align all objects to the same horizontal position. Manual
layouting can also be combined with an automatic layouting and vice versa.
Storing and restoring a Configuration
Some EA tools oer means to store and restore configurations of visualizations. For this
purpose, vendors use one of the following formats:
comma-separated values (CSV),
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),
XML Metadata Interchange (XMI),
Extensible Markup Language (XML),
Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet Format (XLS/XLSX), and
Plain Text file (TXT).
Setting-up and Adapting the EA Information Model

While being a notable feature in 2005 and 2008, the possibility to adapt the EA information
model during runtime has become a commodity nowadays.
We asked the vendors whether their EA tool is shipped with a predefined EA information
model. This can be either
a full schema or
configurable building blocks.
While the former can serve as best practice guide, the latter has to be adapted to the organizational context during initial setup of the EA tool.
It might be possible to create a meta-model on your own as well. We asked whether users can
configure their information model using predefined building-blocks if the information model
is initially undefined.
In terms of flexibility, we asked which schema elements can be extended or adapted. Elements
that can be modified are
classes,
attributes,
relationships,
37

cardinality constraints,
type constraints, and
access rights.
For each element, we asked which of the following operations are supported:
create,
modify,
delete,
copy/clone,
merge, and
move.
Note that the copy/clone operation refers to the ability to create a deep copy of a model
element. This might be possible at schema level, i.e. class, attribute, and relationship as well
as data level, i.e. objects, values, and links.
The merge operation refers to the ability to create a model element based on information
contained in two or more model elements. This ability may be implemented at schema and
data level as well. Note that in this context, the EA tool must deal with conflicts that arise
during such an operation.
Move refers to the ability to move objects or classes within a model. This operation may
produce side-eects that the user is unaware of especially if the tool supports inheritance.
Against this background, we were interested in finding out whether subclassing, i.e. class
inheritance, is supported as well.
Data Import
A recent trend in EA management is to integrate information that is stored in third party
information sources ranging from database management systems over interfaces to other business applications to flat CSV or Excel files. Thereby, we distinguish between pull and push
approaches. Pull refers to the fact that structured information is imported using built-in
scripting facilities of the EA tool whereas push denotes the structured import of information
using built-in scripting functionalities of the information source. We asked tool vendors which
types of third-party tools can be integrated
Business Intelligence Tools,
Business Process Engines,
Change Management Tools,
Cloud Services,
Configuration Management Tools,
38

Enterprise Service Buses,
Infrastructure Monitoring Tools,
Licensing Management / IT Asset Management Tools,
Project Portfolio Management Tools, and
Release Management Tools.
In addition, we asked which file formats can be used to export from and import data into the
EA tool:
CSV,
JSON,
XLS, XLSX,
XMI,
XML, and/or
OData.
We further asked which file formats can be used to export and import a schema:
JSON,
XMI,
XML, and/or
OData.
We then asked which elements of the EA information model can be exported and imported:
Schema
Classes
Relationships
Attribute Definitions
Instances
Objects (instance of a class)
References/Links
Attribute values
Meta-information
Roles
Access Rights
39
CHAPTER
EA Visualization Types
Contents
5.1. Matrix/Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2. Cluster Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3. Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4. Flow Diagram
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.5. List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6. Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.7. Entity-Relationship Diagram
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.8. Bar Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.9. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.10. Unified Modeling Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.11. Bubble Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.12. Tree View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.13. Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.14. Dashboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.15. Radar Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.16. Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.17. ArchiMate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.18. Line Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.19. Scatter Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.20. Geographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.21. Business Model Canvas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.22. Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.23. Treemap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
41
5.24. Tag Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.25. 3D Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.26. Sunburst Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
42
We invited tool vendors to submit a list of up to 100 screenshots and brief descriptions
demonstrating the visualization capabilities of their EA tools. All submitted screenshots
were clustered into dierent groups. The clustering is mainly based on visual primitives instead of semantics even though the two aspects usually are closely linked to each other (e.g.
UML, Business Model Canvas or Project Portfolio Matrix). However, since we observed a
large variety of very specific visualizations, we decided to focus on common visual patterns.
In this chapter, we introduce the 26 visualization types which were identified in our analysis.
Please note that some types are quite similar. In fact, various visualization types are combined and/or merged in practice to create specific visualizations when they satisfy particular
information demands better than simple diagrams. In summary, the following list of visualization types should be considered to be a pragmatic generalization of a wide range of more
or less highly specific visualizations.
Survey participants were asked to provide details about up to 5 usage scenarios for each visualization type including information about usage domain and targeted stakeholder group.
We used a simplified version of the layered perspective on EA depicted in Figure 2.2.
Strategy
Business
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
Applications
Infrastructure
Figure 5.1.: Our modified layered view on Enterprise Architecture

Practitioners were able to specify one of the following stakeholders as target group for each
provided example scenario:
Business Analyst
CxO (e.g. CEO, CFO, CIO)
Enterprise Architect
Junior/Senior Manager (Business)
Junior/Senior Manager (IT)
Solutions Architect
Other
43
Figure 5.2.: Overview of 26 visualization types found in our study
44
5.1. Matrix/Table
A matrix is a structured graphical representation of information. Data is organized in rows and columns. Rows and
columns are visually aligned.
Usage
According to our survey, 82 out of 109 practitioners use some
kind of matrix/table. They provided 176 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Matrices/tables are mainly used to display information that is concerned
with application and business aspects according to our practitioner survey.
Strategy
11%
Business
24%
Applications
24%
Infrastructure
6%
Cross-Cutting Aspects
13%
Usage Domain
Strategy (11%)
Business (24%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(13%)
n = 176
Applications (45%)
Infrastructure (6%)
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
10%
9%
34%
5%
17%
Solutions Architect
11%
Other
13%
n = 166
45
5.2. Cluster Map

Cluster maps are widespread in Enterprise Architecture.
They are often used to visualize hierarchical relationships
between entities. For instance, a mapping from applications
to business domains or processes can be visualized in a cluster map: outer rectangles represent business domains, inner
rectangles represent applications. Then, each rectangle corresponding to a business domain contains all rectangles which
correspond to an application that supports the respective
business domain.
Usage
kind of cluster map. They provided 220 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Practioners report that
cluster maps are mainly used at the application and business
layer.
Strategy
10%
Business
32%
Applications
32%
Infrastructure
15%
8%
n = 220
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
8%
18%
20%
13%
15%
Solutions Architect
16%
Other
11%
n = 213
46
Usage Domain
Strategy (10%)
Business (32%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(8%)
Applications (35%)
Infrastructure (15%)
Examples
5.3. Timeline
A timeline is a graphical representation of time periods
and/or points in time. Timelines are frequently used to
show the chronology of related events and/or activities from
a project plan. A widely-used variant of a timeline is the
GANTT diagram. In EA, GANTT diagrams are often used
to visualize project roadmaps.
Usage
kind of timeline. They provided 95 examples to illustrate how
they use this visualization type. Timeline charts are mainly
used at the Application layer or cross-cutting purposes.
Strategy
20%
Business
9%
Applications
9%
Infrastructure
12%
27%
Usage Domain
Strategy (20%)
Business (9%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(27%)
n = 95
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
Applications (32%)
3%
17%
21%
13%
23%
Solutions Architect
12%
Other
10%
n = 99
47
5.4. Flow Diagram

A flow diagram depicts the flow of data or control between
dierent entities. Typically, flows are represented by arrows
and structural entities are represented by boxes or symbols.
In EA, for instance, flow diagrams are used to visualize business process steps or data flow between dierent applications.
Usage
kind of flow diagram. They provided 74 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Flow diagrams
are mainly used to display information about business aspects and, to a lesser extent, the application landscape.
Strategy
3%
Business
59%
Applications
59%
Infrastructure
7%
4%
Usage Domain
Strategy (3%)
Business (59%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(4%)
Infrastructure (7%)
n = 74
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
33%
1%
16%
17%
8%
Solutions Architect
12%
Other
13%
n = 76
48
Applications (27%)
5.5. List
A list is a enumeration of (textual) items displayed in a repetitive pattern. Items are usually separated by a specific separator and/or position such as a bullet point or bars.
Usage
kind of list. They provided 96 examples to illustrate how they
use this visualization type. Lists are predominantly used to
display information about the application landscape.
Strategy
11%
Business
23%
Applications
23%
Infrastructure
16%
16%
n = 96
Usage Domain
Strategy (11%)
Business (23%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(16%)
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
Applications (34%)
13%
9%
Examples
24%
7%
13%
Solutions Architect
23%
Other
11%
n = 96
49
5.6. Graph
A graph is a graphical representation of entities and their
relations. Entities are depicted as nodes (e.g. filled circle or
symbol) and their relationships are depicted as lines (edges)
connecting the nodes.
Usage
kind of graph. They provided 117 examples to illustrate how
they use this visualization type. Graph visualizations are
mainly used at the Business and Application layers.
Strategy
14%
Business
38%
Applications
38%
Infrastructure
14%
7%
n = 117
Usage Domain
Strategy (14%)
Business (38%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(7%)
Applications (27%)
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
13%
15%
28%
12%
8%
Solutions Architect
13%
Other
12%
n = 112
50
Examples
5.7. Entity-Relationship Diagram

An entity-relationship (ER) diagram is a graphical abstraction of structural elements and their relationships. Entities
are shown as rectangles and their relationships are represented as connecting lines between entities. In addition, entities and relationships can be described in more detail by
attaching attributes (represented as ellipses). In EA, for instance, ER diagrams can be used to describe attributes of
and relationships between dierent applications.
Usage
kind of entity-relationship diagram. They provided 64 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. ER
diagrams are primarily used to display information at the application layer and secondary to visualize information about
business aspects.
Strategy
2%
Business
28%
Applications
28%
Infrastructure
3%
2%
Usage Domain
Strategy (2%)
Business (28%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(2%)
Applications (66%)
Infrastructure (3%)
Examples
n = 64
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
19%
0%
25%
3%
14%
Solutions Architect
28%
Other
11%
n = 64
51
5.8. Bar Chart

Bar charts visualize quantitative data associated to a set of
categories. Each category is represented as a rectangle. The
length of the rectangle is proportional to the corresponding
quantitative value. A bar chart might be used, for instance,
to show the IT budget of dierent business domains.
Usage
kind of bar chart. They provided 54 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Cross-cutting aspects
and information about the application landscape are two major types of information which are illustrated as bar charts.
Strategy
9%
Business
17%
Applications
17%
Infrastructure
13%
31%
Usage Domain
Strategy (9%)
Business (17%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(31%)
n = 54
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
2%
22%
26%
11%
24%
Solutions Architect
6%
Other
9%
n = 54
52
Applications (30%)
5.9. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification is a standard for business process modeling. It provides a graphical notation for defining business processes in
a Business Process Diagram (BPD). A business process is
drawn as a rectangle and may contain sub-processes that are
modeled using rectangles with rounded corners. The control
flow between elements is represented by arrows. So-called
gateways represent logical conditions (AND, OR, XOR) for
the control flow.
Usage
kind of BPMN notation. They provided 52 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. As expected,
BPMN diagrams are heavily used at the business layer.
Usage Domain
Strategy (2%)
Business (87%)
Strategy
2%
Business
87%
Applications
87%
Infrastructure
0%
0%
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(0%)
Applications (12%)
Infrastructure (0%)
Examples
n = 52
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
38%
2%
10%
31%
8%
Solutions Architect
6%
Other
6%
n = 52
53
5.10. Unified Modeling Language

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is one of the most
widely used (visual) modeling languages. UML oers various
diagram types to model structure as well as behavior. In EA,
UML can be used for various purposes such as modeling and
visualizing infrastructure or data structures.
Usage
kind of UML diagram. They provided 49 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. UML diagrams are
mainly used to display information at the application layer.
Strategy
2%
Business
16%
Applications
16%
Infrastructure
10%
10%
Usage Domain
Strategy (2%)
Business (16%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(10%)
n = 49
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
12%
0%
20%
6%
14%
Solutions Architect
39%
Other
10%
n = 51
54
Applications (61%)
5.11. Bubble Chart

A bubble chart displays three-dimensional data. Each data
point (i.e. triple) is represented as a disk. Two of the data
point values determine the x and y location of the disk. The
third value determines the size of the disk. In EA, bubble
charts are used, for instance, to show an overview of applications in terms of importance (number of dependencies),
business criticality and IT evaluation.
Usage
kind of bubble chart. They provided 61 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Bubble charts are
heavily used to display information at the strategy level.
Usage Domain
Strategy (51%)
Strategy
51%
Business
13%
Applications
13%
Infrastructure
2%
Business (13%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(16%)
Applications (18%)
Infrastructure (2%)
16%
n = 61
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
2%
42%
10%
18%
26%
Solutions Architect
2%
Other
2%
n = 62
55
5.12. Tree View

A tree view is a graphical representation of hierarchical, treelike information as a list of items. Dierent hierarchy levels
usually are represented using indentation.
Usage
kind of tree view. They provided 60 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Tree views are primarily
used to display information about business aspects and the
application landscape.
Strategy
5%
Business
42%
Applications
42%
Infrastructure
12%
12%
n = 60
Usage Domain
Strategy (5%)
Business (42%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(12%)
Applications (30%)
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
Solutions Architect
Other
n = 58
56
12%
5%
33%
7%
21%
9%
14%
Examples
5.13. Pie Chart

A pie chart is a circular chart to visualize quantitative ratios. The circle is divided into segments, each representing
one data point. The size of the segment is proportional to
the value of the data point. A pie chart might be used to
illustrate the shares of all the cost components contributing
to total spending of a project.
Usage
kind of pie chart. They provided 41 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Pie charts are predominantly used to display information about cross-cutting
aspects, the application landscape and strategic issues.
Usage Domain
Strategy (20%)
Strategy
20%
Business
12%
Applications
12%
Infrastructure
12%
29%
Business (12%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(29%)
Applications (27%)
n = 41
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
2%
26%
31%
14%
21%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
5%
n = 42
57
5.14. Dashboard
A dashboard is a fixed or customized composition of dierent single visualizations. Dashboards are used to provide an
overview of dierent information which are relevant for a specific purpose such as monitoring dierent aspects of a certain
project.
Usage
kind of dashboard. They provided 44 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. In practice, dashboards
are mainly used to display information which address strategic or cross-cutting concerns.
Strategy
39%
Business
16%
Applications
16%
Infrastructure
5%
Usage Domain
Strategy (39%)
Business (16%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(27%)
27%
Infrastructure (5%)
n = 44
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
2%
44%
26%

7%
14%
Solutions Architect
2%
Other
5%
n = 43
58
Applications (14%)
5.15. Radar Chart

A radar chart displays n-dimensional data using n concentric
axes. Each axis represents one dimension. A data point (i.e.
n-tuple) is represented by a polygon. Each vertex is located
on a dierent axis and represents the corresponding value.
In EA, for instance, a radar chart might be used to evaluate
a project and visualize it in terms of specific criteria such as
costs, importance and duration.
Usage
kind of radar chart. They provided 51 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Radar charts are used
to display information at each layer with similar frequency
except for information about infrastructure.
Strategy
33%
Business
24%
Applications
24%
Infrastructure
4%
Usage Domain
Strategy (33%)
Business (24%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(20%)
Applications (20%)
Infrastructure (4%)
20%
n = 51
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
6%
25%
24%
18%
20%
Solutions Architect
6%
Other
2%
n = 51
59
5.16. Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC)

An EPC diagram can be used to model business processes
and workflows. The flow of events within a process can be
modeled using sequences of activities that are controlled by
the combination of events and conditions.
Usage
kind of EPC diagram. They provided 20 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Similar to BPMN
diagrams, EPC diagrams are mostly used to show information adressing business concerns.
Strategy
0%
Business
80%
Applications
80%
Infrastructure
0%
10%
Usage Domain
Strategy (0%)
Business (80%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(10%)
n = 20
Infrastructure (0%)
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
52%
0%
5%
19%
10%
Solutions Architect
10%
Other
n = 21
60
Applications (10%)
5%
5.17. ArchiMate
ArchiMate is an open and independent modeling language for
enterprise architecture. ArchiMate promotes a three layered
view on enterprise architecture: business layer, application
layer and technology layer. It provides means of expression
for structural, behavioral and informational concepts for each
of the layers.
Usage
kind of ArchiMate diagram. They provided 25 examples to
illustrate how they use this visualization type. ArchiMate
notation is mainly used to display information about application and business aspects.
Usage Domain
Strategy (8%)
Strategy
8%
Business
24%
Applications
24%
Infrastructure
4%
Business (24%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(16%)
Applications (48%)
Infrastructure (4%)
16%
n = 25
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
8%
0%
42%
8%
13%
Solutions Architect
25%
Other
4%
n = 24
61
5.18. Line Chart

A line chart illustrates one or more series of data points connected by straight line segments. Line charts are often used
to show trends over a specific time period. In EA, for instance, line charts might be used to visualize the total number of used applications.
Usage
kind of line chart. They provided 21 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Line charts mostly show
information about strategy or the application landscape.
Strategy
38%
Business
14%
Applications
14%
Infrastructure
10%
14%
Usage Domain
Strategy (38%)
Business (14%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(14%)
n = 21
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
0%
36%
5%
14%
32%
Solutions Architect
5%
Other
9%
n = 22
62
Applications (24%)
5.19. Scatter Chart

A scatter chart displays two-dimensional data. Data points
(i.e. value pairs) are represented as points on a twodimensional plane. Each axis corresponds to one dimension.
In EA, a scatter plot might be used to display an overview
of projects in terms of costs and duration.
Usage
kind of scatter chart. They provided 22 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Practitioners mainly
use scatter charts to display information about strategy or
cross-cutting concerns.
Strategy
41%
Business
14%
Applications
14%
Infrastructure
9%
Usage Domain
Strategy (41%)
Business (14%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(23%)
23%
Infrastructure (9%)
n = 22
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
Applications (14%)
0%
38%
14%
24%
19%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
5%
n = 21
63
5.20. Geographic Map

A geographic map shows multi-dimensional information
where (at least) one dimension corresponds to a location.
In EA, for instance, geographic maps are used to show the
distribution of IT infrastructure such as servers.
Usage
kind of geographic map. They provided 15 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Geographic maps
mainly display information about strategic, cross-cutting and
application aspects.
Strategy
33%
Business
13%
Applications
13%
Infrastructure
13%
20%
Usage Domain
Strategy (33%)
Business (13%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(20%)
n = 15
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
0%
47%
13%
13%
13%
Solutions Architect
7%
Other
7%
n = 15
64
Applications (20%)
5.21. Business Model Canvas

The Business Model Canvas is a visual template to document
key aspects of a business model. In EA, for instance, it can be
used to facilitate discussion about business strategies across
dierent departments and/or projects.
Usage
kind of Business Model Canvas. They provided 17 examples
to illustrate how they use this visualization type. As anticipated, practitioners use the Business Model Canvas to visualize information which adresses concerncs at the strategy
and business level.
Strategy
76%
Business
18%
Applications
18%
Infrastructure
0%
0%
Usage Domain
Strategy (76%)
Business (18%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(0%)
Applications (6%)
Infrastructure (0%)
n = 17
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
11%
50%
33%
0%
6%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
0%
n = 18
65
5.22. Gauge
A gauge is the graphical representation of a single indicator. It is often depicted as a circle with a certain scale and a
pointer indicating the corresponding value of the data point.
A gauge can be used, for instance, to visualize key performance indicators.
Usage
kind of gauge. They provided 5 examples to illustrate how
they use this visualization type. Gauges are mainly used to
display information which is relevant for strategic concerns.
Strategy
80%
Business
0%
Applications
0%
Infrastructure
0%
20%
Usage Domain
Strategy (80%)
Business (0%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(20%)
n=5
Infrastructure (0%)
Stakeholders
Examples
Business Analyst
0%
60%
0%
20%
0%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
n=5
66
Applications (0%)
20%
5.23. Treemap
Treemaps display hierarchical, treelike data as nested rectangles. Each branch of the tree is represented as a rectangle
and is in turn tiled with rectangles which correspond to subbranches. The rectangle sizes are proportional to a specific
(quantitative) dimension of the data. In EA, treemaps can be
used to, for instance, show the budget allocated to dierent
departments of the organization.
Usage
kind of treemap. They provided 19 examples to illustrate how
they use this visualization type. Practitioners use tree maps
at each information level with similar frequency.
Usage Domain
Strategy (26%)
Strategy
26%
Business
16%
Applications
16%
Infrastructure
11%
21%
Business (16%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(21%)
Applications (26%)
n = 19
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
0%
47%
21%
16%
16%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
0%
n = 19
67
5.24. Tag Cloud

A tag cloud is a visual representation of a set of keywords.
Metadata of the keywords is shown using style variables such
as font size, color or position.
Usage
kind of tag cloud. They provided 8 examples to illustrate
how they use this visualization type. Tag clouds are mainly
used to display information about the application landscape
and strategic aspects.
Strategy
38%
Business
13%
Applications
13%
Infrastructure
0%
0%
n=8
Usage Domain
Strategy (38%)
Business (13%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(0%)
Applications (50%)
Infrastructure (0%)
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
27%
9%
36%
0%
9%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
n = 11
68
18%
Examples
5.25. 3D Visualization
A three-dimensional visualization utilizes one additional dimension compared to two-dimensional visualizations. In general, 3D projections are used instead of true 3D visualizations since the typically used medium is two-dimensional (e.g.
screens, paper).
Usage
kind of 3D visualization/projection. They provided 5 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. The
few survey participants who utilize 3D visualizations, use
them to display information at each level except for crosscutting aspects.
Usage Domain
Strategy (20%)
Strategy
20%
Business
20%
Applications
20%
Infrastructure
40%
Business (20%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(0%)
Applications (20%)
0%
n=5
Examples
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
50%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
0%
n=8
69
5.26. Sunburst Chart

A sunburst chart is a multi-level pie chart. It is used to visualize hierarchical data in multiple concentric circles. Each circle represents one hierarchy layer and is divided in segments.
Each segment corresponds to one item at the respective hierarchy level. The size of the segments is proportional to the
value in one particular dimension of the corresponding data
point (i.e. item). Subitems are arranged on the next outer
circle, adjacent to their parent item. Sunburst charts can be
used to show a drill-down of the cost component structure of
a certain project or department.
Usage
Usage Domain

kind of sunburst chart. They provided 11 examples to illustrate how they use this visualization type. Sunburst charts
are mainly used to display information at the strategy, business or application level.
Strategy
36%
Business
27%
Applications
27%
Infrastructure
9%
9%
n = 11
Stakeholders
Business Analyst
27%
9%
36%
0%
9%
Solutions Architect
0%
Other
n = 11
70
18%
Strategy (36%)
Business (27%)
Cross-Cutting
Aspects
(9%)
Applications (18%)
Infrastructure (9%)
Examples
Part II.
EA Tools and Vendor Profiles
71
ABACUS
CHAPTER
ABACUS (Avolution)
Contents
6.1. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Visualization Import/Export File Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
6.3. Visualization Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
Generation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
Visual Customization and Layouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
Import/Export of Visualization Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
6.4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Information Model Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
6.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Import Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Third Party Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Data & Schema Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Model Element Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
6.6. Visualization Examples of ABACUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
73
ABACUS
Avolution Pty Ltd was founded in 2001 and has more than 12 years of experience in the
EA domain. The company is vendor of ABACUS which is oered in version 4.2 at the
editorial deadline. ABACUS supports 25 out of 26 visualization types. ABACUS implements
a convenient way that allows to map the information demand of a visualization to an EA
information model via drag-and-drop operations. This way existing model elements can be
mapped to visual symbols on an instance of a visualization type. ABACUS actually uses the
concept of a visualization type as a means to browse through the respective instances, i.e.
configured visualizations. A configured visualization can be created by end users. In this
process, a model element that previously has been linked to a visual symbol can be added to
the visualization via drag-and-drop.
Avolution Pty Ltd also published a white paper that gives some advices on how to choose
an EA tool focusing on features and their technical implementation (cf.[Av12]). In this white
paper Avolution Pty Ltd lists 22 (very technical) criteria that may guide to dierentiate EA
tools.
6.1. Background Information

Vendor
Avolution Pty Ltd
Founding year
2001
Years active in EA market
12
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.avolution.com.au
Table 6.1.: Vendor Information of Avolution Pty Ltd
74
ABACUS
Tool Name
ABACUS
Version
4.2
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 6.2.: General Information (ABACUS)

Visualization Import/Export File Formats
Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 6.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (ABACUS)
75
ABACUS

Binding
Loose coupling between model
elements and visualizations
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 6.4.: Binding (ABACUS)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 6.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (ABACUS)
Layout
Customization
Visual Customization and Layouting

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 6.6.: Visual Customization (ABACUS)
76
ABACUS
Import/Export of Visualization Configurations
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 6.7.: Configuration Import/Export (ABACUS)
6.4. Information Model

Information Model Type
Full Schema
Configurable Building Blocks
User-defined
Subclassing/class inheritance
Table 6.8.: Information Model Type (ABACUS)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Relationships Cardinality
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 6.9.: Information Model Flexibility (ABACUS)
77
ABACUS
6.5. Interoperability
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 6.10.: Import Mechanisms (ABACUS)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 6.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (ABACUS)
78
ABACUS
Data & Schema Import/Export
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 6.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (ABACUS)
Model Element Import/Export
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 6.13.: Model Element Import/Export (ABACUS)
79
ABACUS
6.6. Visualization Examples of ABACUS
Figure 6.1.: Matrix of ABACUS
80
Figure 6.2.: Cluster Map of ABACUS
ABACUS
Figure 6.3.: Timeline of ABACUS
Figure 6.4.: Flow Diagram of ABACUS

81
ABACUS
Figure 6.5.: List of ABACUS
Figure 6.6.: Graph of ABACUS
82
ABACUS
Figure 6.7.: ER Diagram of ABACUS
Figure 6.8.: Bar Chart of ABACUS

83
ABACUS
Figure 6.9.: BPMN Diagram of ABACUS
Figure 6.10.: UML Diagram of ABACUS

84
ABACUS
Figure 6.11.: Bubble Chart of ABACUS
Figure 6.12.: Treeview of ABACUS

85
ABACUS
Figure 6.13.: Pie Chart of ABACUS
Figure 6.14.: Dashboard of ABACUS
86
ABACUS
Figure 6.15.: Radar Diagram of ABACUS
Figure 6.16.: EPC Diagram of ABACUS

87
ABACUS
Figure 6.17.: ArchiMate Diagram of ABACUS
Figure 6.18.: Line Chart of ABACUS
88
ABACUS
Figure 6.19.: Scatter Chart of ABACUS
Figure 6.20.: Geographic Map of ABACUS

89
ABACUS
Figure 6.21.: Business Model Canvas of ABACUS
Figure 6.22.: Gauges of ABACUS
90
ABACUS
Figure 6.23.: Treemap of ABACUS
Figure 6.24.: Sunburst of ABACUS

91
ABACUS
Figure 6.25.: 3D Visualization of ABACUS
92
ADOit
CHAPTER
ADOit (BOC AG)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Visualization Import/Export File Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Generation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Visual Customization and Layouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Import/Export of Visualization Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99

Information Model Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99

Import Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Third Party Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Data & Schema Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Model Element Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.6. Visualization Examples of ADOit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
93
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)

BOC AG was founded in 1995 and has more than 10 years of experience in the EA domain.
The company is vendor of ADOit which is oered in version 6.0 at the editorial deadline.
ADOit supports 20 out of 26 visualization types.
ADOit is a product of the integrated
BOC Management Office. Besides ADOit, the BOC Management Office comprises ADOscore
for strategy and performance management, ADONIS for business process management, and
ADOlog for supply chain management. These tools provide additional views, not considered
in this survey. ADOit is an EA tool with fully configurable and customizable views and
underlying EA information model.
Figure 7.1.: E-Mail Notification of ADOit

ADOit enables collaboration via a web-based client for a decentralized model maintenance.
The EA tool incorporates mechanisms for email notification of model events (cf. Figure 7.1).
The information model covers concepts derived from best-practice standards such as Zachman, TOGAF, Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT), and
Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL).

Vendor
BOC AG
Founding year
1995
10
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.boc-group.com
Table 7.1.: Vendor Information of BOC AG
94
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)

Tool Name
ADOit
Version
6.0
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 7.2.: General Information (ADOit)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 7.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (ADOit)
95
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 7.4.: Binding (ADOit)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 7.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (ADOit)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 7.6.: Visual Customization (ADOit)
96
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 7.7.: Configuration Import/Export (ADOit)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 7.8.: Information Model Type (ADOit)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 7.9.: Information Model Flexibility (ADOit)
97
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 7.10.: Import Mechanisms (ADOit)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 7.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (ADOit)
98
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 7.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (ADOit)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 7.13.: Model Element Import/Export (ADOit)
99
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
7.6. Visualization Examples of ADOit
Figure 7.2.: Matrix of ADOit
Figure 7.3.: Cluster Map of ADOit

100
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.4.: Timeline of ADOit
Figure 7.5.: Flow Diagram of ADOit
101
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.6.: List of ADOit
Figure 7.7.: Graph of ADOit
102
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.8.: Bar Chart of ADOit
Figure 7.9.: BPMN Diagram of ADOit
103
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.10.: Bubble Chart of ADOit
Figure 7.11.: Treeview of ADOit
104
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.12.: Pie Chart of ADOit
Figure 7.13.: Dashboard of ADOit
105
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.14.: Radar Diagram of ADOit
Figure 7.15.: EPC Diagram of ADOit
106
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.16.: ArchiMate Diagram of ADOit
Figure 7.17.: Scatter Chart of ADOit
107
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.18.: Business Model Canvas of ADOit
Figure 7.19.: Gauges of ADOit
108
ADOit
7. ADOit (BOC AG)
Figure 7.20.: Treemap of ADOit
Figure 7.21.: Sunburst of ADOit
109
ADOit
ALFABET
CHAPTER
ALFABET (Software AG)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Visualization Import/Export File Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

8.3. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Generation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Visual Customization and Layouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Information Model Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
8.6. Visualization Examples of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . . . . . 120
111

ALFABET
Software AG was founded in 1969 and has more than 15 years of experience in the EA
domain. The company is vendor of planningIT and ARIS which is oered in version 8.1a ,
9.5b at the editorial deadline. planningIT and ARIS supports 21 out of 26 visualization types.
After the acquisition of alfabet by Software AG in June 2013 the company will bundle its
EA solution support under the brand name of ALFABET carrying forward the functionality
currently provided by the two products ARIS and planningIT. Furthermore, the business
process analysis and management support functionality will be bundled under the brand
name of ARIS again combining the capabilities currently provided by ARIS and planningIT.
To this end the two currently separated products will be further developed to share a federated
inventory and provide user interface interoperability allowing for business users in ARIS to
migrate to IT planning and portfolio management aspects and for IT planners and portfolio
managers to continue on into the realms of business process analysis and modeling. The
necessary product enhancements will be provided in two releases over the course of the year
2014. Going forward ARIS and ALFABET are sharing a harmonized release cycle.

Vendor
Software AG
Founding year
1969
15
Number of employees
5 00110 000
URL
www.softwareag.com
Table 8.1.: Vendor Information of Software AG
112

ALFABET
Tool Name
planningIT and ARIS
Version
8.1a , 9.5b
Client Platforms
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
3a,b Windows
MacOS
3a,b Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
3b
Desktop
3a,b SaaS
Linux
3a,b Server
Other
3b
ArchiMate
3b
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
3b
IAF
3a,b TOGAF
3a,b MODAF
3a,b Zachman
3a
a,b
Other
Table 8.2.: General Information (planningIT and ARIS)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
3a,b
DOC(X)
3a,b
HTML
3a,b
JPG/JPEG
3a,b
PDF
3a,b
PNG
3a,b
PPT(X)
3a,b
SVG
3a,b
VSD(X)
Other
3a,b
Table 8.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (planningIT and ARIS)
113
8.3. Configuration
Binding
3a,b
Schema Bindings
3a,b
Data Filter
3a,b
Other
Table 8.4.: Binding (planningIT and ARIS)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
3a,b
Scripting
3a,b
Manual Drawing
3a,b
Other
Table 8.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (planningIT and ARIS)
Customization
Layout
ALFABET
Caption
3a,b
Color
3a,b
Orientation
3a,b
Position
3a,b
Shape
3a,b
Size
3a,b
Other
3a,b
Automated
3a
Manual
3a
Other
Table 8.6.: Visual Customization (planningIT and ARIS)
114

ALFABET
Import/Export
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
3a,b
3a,b
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 8.7.: Configuration Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS)

Full Schema
3a,b
User-defined
Does your EA tool allow subclassing/class inheritance
3a,b
Table 8.8.: Information Model Type (planningIT and ARIS)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Modify
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Delete
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Copy
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Merge
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Move
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Table 8.9.: Information Model Flexibility (planningIT and ARIS)
115

ALFABET
Import Mechanisms
Pull
3a,b
Push
3a,b
Other
Table 8.10.: Import Mechanisms (planningIT and ARIS)
Third Party Tools

3a
3a
3a
Cloud Services
3a
3a
3a
3a
3a
3a
Other
Table 8.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (planningIT and ARIS)
116

ALFABET
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
3a,b
3a,b
JSON
TXT
XMI
3a,b
3a,b
3b
3b
XML
3a,b
3a,b
3a
3a
XLS(X)
3a,b
3a,b
OData
Other
a,b
Table 8.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
3a,b
3a,b
Objects
3a,b
3a,b
Relationships
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
3a,b
Attribute Values
3a,b
3a,b
Access Rights
3a,b
3a,b
Roles
3a,b
3a,b
Other
Table 8.13.: Model Element Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS)
117

ALFABET
8.6. Visualization Examples of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.1.: Matrix of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.2.: Cluster Map of planningIT and ARIS

118

ALFABET
Figure 8.3.: Timeline of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.4.: Flow Diagram of planningIT and ARIS

119

ALFABET
Figure 8.5.: List of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.6.: Graph of planningIT and ARIS

120

ALFABET
Figure 8.7.: ER Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.8.: Bar Chart of planningIT and ARIS

121

ALFABET
Figure 8.9.: BPMN Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.10.: UML Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
122

ALFABET
Figure 8.11.: Bubble Chart of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.12.: Treeview of planningIT and ARIS

123

ALFABET
Figure 8.13.: Pie Chart of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.14.: Dashboard of planningIT and ARIS

124

ALFABET
Figure 8.15.: Radar Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.16.: EPC Diagram of planningIT and ARIS

125

ALFABET
Figure 8.17.: ArchiMate Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.18.: Line Chart of planningIT and ARIS
126

ALFABET
Figure 8.19.: Scatter Chart of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.20.: Geographic Map of planningIT and ARIS
127

ALFABET
Figure 8.21.: Business Model Canvas of planningIT and ARIS
Figure 8.22.: Gauges of planningIT and ARIS
128

ALFABET
Figure 8.23.: Treemap of planningIT and ARIS
129
ALFABET
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
CHAPTER
BiZZdesign Architect (BiZZdesign)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Import/Export of Visualization Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
9.6. Visualization Examples of BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . . . . . 140
131
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
BiZZdesign was founded in 2000 and has more than 11 years of experience in the EA domain.
The company is vendor of BiZZdesign Architect which is oered in version 4.2 at the editorial
deadline. BiZZdesign Architect supports 23 out of 26 visualization types.
Figure 9.1.: Query Dialog of BiZZdesign Architect

BiZZdesign Architect is an EA tool that features strong modeling facilities when it comes to
ArchiMate [Th12] models. BiZZdesign Architect allows to analyze the model with its own
domain specific language (DSL) (cf. Figure 9.1). The tool is shipped with the ArchiSurance
case study. The layout of visualizations can be done manually, guided, or automatically.

Vendor
BiZZdesign
Founding year
2000
11
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.bizzdesign.com
Table 9.1.: Vendor Information of BiZZdesign
132

Tool Name
BiZZdesign Architect
Version
4.2
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Table 9.2.: General Information (BiZZdesign Architect)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 9.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (BiZZdesign Architect)
133

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 9.4.: Binding (BiZZdesign Architect)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 9.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (BiZZdesign Architect)
Customization
Layout
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 9.6.: Visual Customization (BiZZdesign Architect)
134
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Table 9.7.: Configuration Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 9.8.: Information Model Type (BiZZdesign Architect)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 9.9.: Information Model Flexibility (BiZZdesign Architect)
135
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 9.10.: Import Mechanisms (BiZZdesign Architect)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 9.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (BiZZdesign Architect)
136
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Table 9.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 9.13.: Model Element Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect)
137
9.6. Visualization Examples of BiZZdesign Architect

BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.2.: Matrix of the BiZZdesign Architect
138
Figure 9.3.: Cluster Map of the BiZZdesign Architect
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.4.: Timeline of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.5.: Flow Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect

139
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.6.: List of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.7.: Graph of the BiZZdesign Architect

140
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.8.: ER Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.9.: Bar Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect

141
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.10.: BPMN Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.11.: UML Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect
142
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.12.: Bubble Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.13.: Treeview of the BiZZdesign Architect

143
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.14.: Pie Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.15.: Dashboard of the BiZZdesign Architect
144
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.16.: Radar Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.17.: EPC Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect

145
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.18.: ArchiMate Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.19.: Line Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect
146
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.20.: Scatter Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.21.: Geographic Map of the BiZZdesign Architect
147
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.22.: Business Model Canvas of the BiZZdesign Architect
Figure 9.23.: Treemap of the BiZZdesign Architect
148
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
Figure 9.24.: Tag Cloud of the BiZZdesign Architect
149
BiZZdesign
EA Tool
Suite
CHAPTER
10
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
10.6. Visualization Examples of Corporate Modeler Suite . . . . . . . . 160
151
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
10. Corporate Modeler Suite (Casewise)
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Casewise Ltd was founded in 1989 and has more than 20 years of experience in the EA domain.
The company is vendor of Corporate Modeler Suite which is oered in version 2011.4 at the
editorial deadline. Corporate Modeler Suite supports 10 out of 26 visualization types. At
the editorial deadline Casewise Ltd could not provide us with high resolution screenshots.
However, we included preliminary versions that have been provided by Casewise Ltd in the
course of the initial EA Tool Vendor Survey.
Casewise Ltd advocates a top-down approach and thus can be regarded more business focused
than other tools. This is also reflected in the companies slogan Generating insights into your
business not just models.

Vendor
Casewise Ltd
Founding year
1989
20
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.casewise.com
Table 10.1.: Vendor Information of Casewise Ltd
Tool Name
Corporate Modeler
Suite
Version
2011.4
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 10.2.: General Information (Corporate Modeler Suite)
152

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Table 10.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Corporate Modeler Suite)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 10.4.: Binding (Corporate Modeler Suite)
153
Generation Approach
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 10.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 10.6.: Visual Customization (Corporate Modeler Suite)
154
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Table 10.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 10.8.: Information Model Type (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 10.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Corporate Modeler Suite)
155
Import Mechanisms
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Pull
Push
Other
Table 10.10.: Import Mechanisms (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 10.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Corporate Modeler Suite)
156
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Table 10.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 10.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite)
157
10.6. Visualization Examples of Corporate Modeler Suite
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Figure 10.1.: Matrix of the Corporate Modeler Suite
Figure 10.2.: Cluster Map of the Corporate Modeler Suite
158
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Figure 10.3.: Timeline of the Corporate Modeler Suite
Figure 10.4.: Graph of the Corporate Modeler Suite

159
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Figure 10.5.: ER Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite
Figure 10.6.: UML Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite
160
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Figure 10.7.: Dashboard of the Corporate Modeler Suite
Figure 10.8.: EPC Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite

161
Corporate
Modeler
Suite
Figure 10.9.: ArchiMate Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite
Figure 10.10.: 3D Visualization of the Corporate Modeler Suite

162
CHAPTER
11
Enterprise
Architect
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
11.6. Visualization Examples of Enterprise Architect . . . . . . . . . . . 172
163
11. Enterprise Architect (SparxSystems Ltd)
Enterprise
Architect
Sparx Systems Pty Ltd was founded in 1999 and has more than 10 years of experience in the
EA domain. The company is vendor of Enterprise Architect which is oered in version 10 at
the editorial deadline. Enterprise Architect supports 10 out of 26 visualization types. Sparx
Systems Pty Ltd presents an EA tool that centers around Unified Modeling Language (UML).
The extensions made by Sparx Systems Pty Ltd are conform to the UML profile mechanism.
Besides UML, further standard notations such as for instance ArchiMate, Business Process
Modeling Notation (BPMN), SysML or others are also supported. The Enterprise Architect
may not only serve as an EA tool but also is meant to cover modeling needs in the course
of requirements engineering and operations. The standard notations can be extended with
customized shapes. The Enterprise Architect oers a shape script editor that lets users define
custom shapes using a DSL. Besides that, cliparts in terms of metadata, e.g. Windows
Metafile (WMF) or Windows Enhanced Metafile (EMF), can be imported to extend the
build-in symbols.

Vendor
Sparx Systems Pty Ltd
Founding year
1999
10
Number of employees
1150
URL
www.sparxsystems.eu
Table 11.1.: Vendor Information of Sparx Systems Pty Ltd
164

Tool Name
Version
10
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Enterprise
Architect
Table 11.2.: General Information (Enterprise Architect)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 11.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Enterprise Architect)
165

Binding
Enterprise
Architect

Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 11.4.: Binding (Enterprise Architect)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 11.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Enterprise Architect)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 11.6.: Visual Customization (Enterprise Architect)
166
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Enterprise
Architect
Table 11.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Enterprise Architect)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 11.8.: Information Model Type (Enterprise Architect)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 11.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Enterprise Architect)
167
Import Mechanisms
Enterprise
Architect
Pull
Push
Other
Table 11.10.: Import Mechanisms (Enterprise Architect)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 11.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Enterprise Architect)
168
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Enterprise
Architect
Table 11.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Enterprise Architect)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 11.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Enterprise Architect)
169
11.6. Visualization Examples of Enterprise Architect
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 11.1.: Matrix of the Enterprise Architect
Figure 11.2.: Timeline of the Enterprise Architect
170
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 11.3.: Flow Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
Figure 11.4.: List of the Enterprise Architect
171
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 11.5.: Graph of the Enterprise Architect
Figure 11.6.: ER Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
172
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 11.7.: BPMN Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
Figure 11.8.: UML Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
173
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 11.9.: Treeview of the Enterprise Architect
Figure 11.10.: EPC Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
174
CHAPTER
12
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
12.6. Visualization Examples of Envision VIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
175
Envision
VIP
12. Envision VIP (Future Tech Systems)

Future Tech Systems, Inc. was founded in 1987 and has more than 13 years of experience
in the EA domain. The company is vendor of Envision VIP which is oered in version 10.8
at the editorial deadline. Envision VIP supports 17 out of 26 visualization types. Envision
VIP allows to create any new visualization with associated models, objects, and attributes.
Customization facilities are very user-friendly making extensive use of intuitive dialog boxes,
drag-and-drop capabilities from other existing classes, models, attributes, templates, etc.
While Future Tech Systems, Inc. does oer XML import/export capabilities for literally all
project and model configuration information, they claim to provide even more user friendly
ways of importing and/or exchanging information from both internal and external information sources. Envision VIP supports all well-known EA frameworks. Additional stakeholder
viewpoints/perspectives can be added and integrated at any time.
Envision
VIP

Vendor
Future Tech Systems, Inc.
Founding year
1987
13
Number of employees
1150
URL
www.future-tech.com
Table 12.1.: Vendor Information of Future Tech Systems, Inc.
Tool Name
Envision VIP
Version
10.8
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 12.2.: General Information (Envision VIP)
176

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Envision
VIP
Table 12.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Envision VIP)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 12.4.: Binding (Envision VIP)
177
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 12.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Envision VIP)
Customization
Layout
Envision
VIP
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 12.6.: Visual Customization (Envision VIP)
178
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Envision
VIP
Table 12.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Envision VIP)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 12.8.: Information Model Type (Envision VIP)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 12.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Envision VIP)
179
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 12.10.: Import Mechanisms (Envision VIP)
Envision
VIP
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 12.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Envision VIP)
180
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Microsoft
Word
Document
Format
(DOC/DOCX)
Envision
VIP
Table 12.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Envision VIP)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 12.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Envision VIP)
181
12.6. Visualization Examples of Envision VIP
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.1.: Matrix of Envision VIP
182
Figure 12.2.: Cluster Map of Envision VIP
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.3.: Flow Diagram of Envision VIP
Figure 12.4.: Graph of Envision VIP

183
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.5.: ER Diagram of Envision VIP
Figure 12.6.: Bar Chart of Envision VIP
184
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.7.: BPMN Diagram of Envision VIP
Figure 12.8.: UML Diagram of Envision VIP
185
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.9.: Pie Chart of Envision VIP
Figure 12.10.: Dashboard of Envision VIP

186
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.11.: Radar Diagram of Envision VIP
Figure 12.12.: Line Chart of Envision VIP

187
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.13.: Geographic Map of Envision VIP
Figure 12.14.: Gauges of Envision VIP

188
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.15.: Treemap of Envision VIP
Figure 12.16.: Tag Cloud of Envision VIP
189
Envision
VIP
Figure 12.17.: 3D Visualization of Envision VIP
190
CHAPTER
13
iteraplan (iteratec)
iteraplan
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
13.6. Visualization Examples of iteraplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
191
13. iteraplan (iteratec)

iteratec GmbH was founded in 1996 and has more than 13 years of experience in the EA
domain. The company is vendor of iteraplan which is oered in version 3.2 at the editorial
deadline. iteraplan supports 13 out of 26 visualization types. iteraplan is known in the EA
iteraplan
Figure 13.1.: Form-based Visualization Wizard of iteraplan

community for its open-source version as it is an ideal candidate for low-budget EA initiatives.
Besides the open-source community edition, iteraplan is oered as enterprise edition that
includes more sophisticated features like import of data from third party information sources,
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) interfaces, access rights and role management,
etc. iteraplan features a build-in best-practice EA information model and, thus, enables for a
quick start to EA management. In practice, we experienced that EA practitioners often use
the well-written and hands-on guides by Hanschke, e.g. [Ha10]. These books also represent
the guidelines and vision for the future development of the open-source tool iteraplan. In
iteraplan, a wizard facilitates the configuration of visualizations (cf. Figure 13.1). This way,
end-users can configure queries that define the data to be visualized. Multiple export formats
complement the oering of iteratec GmbH.

Vendor
iteratec GmbH
Founding year
1996
13
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.iteratec.de,
www.iteraplan.de
Table 13.1.: Vendor Information of iteratec GmbH
192

Tool Name
iteraplan
Version
3.2
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
iteraplan
Table 13.2.: General Information (iteraplan)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 13.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (iteraplan)
193

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 13.4.: Binding (iteraplan)
Generation Approach
iteraplan
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 13.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (iteraplan)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 13.6.: Visual Customization (iteraplan)
194
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 13.7.: Configuration Import/Export (iteraplan)
iteraplan

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 13.8.: Information Model Type (iteraplan)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 13.9.: Information Model Flexibility (iteraplan)
195
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 13.10.: Import Mechanisms (iteraplan)
Third Party Tools
iteraplan
Cloud Services
Other
Table 13.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (iteraplan)
196
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
3
iteraplan
Table 13.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (iteraplan)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 13.13.: Model Element Import/Export (iteraplan)
197
13.6. Visualization Examples of iteraplan
iteraplan
Figure 13.2.: Matrix of iteraplan
Figure 13.3.: Cluster Map of iteraplan
198
iteraplan
Figure 13.4.: Timeline of iteraplan
Figure 13.5.: Flow Diagram of iteraplan

199
iteraplan
Figure 13.6.: List of iteraplan
Figure 13.7.: Graph of iteraplan
200
iteraplan
Figure 13.8.: Bar Chart of iteraplan
Figure 13.9.: Bubble Chart of iteraplan

201
iteraplan
Figure 13.10.: Treeview of iteraplan
Figure 13.11.: Pie Chart of iteraplan
202
iteraplan
Figure 13.12.: Dashboard of iteraplan
Figure 13.13.: Line Chart of iteraplan
203
iteraplan
Figure 13.14.: Scatter Chart of iteraplan
204
CHAPTER
14
Layer8 (Layer8-Solutions)
Layer8
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
14.6. Visualization Examples of Layer8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
205
14. Layer8 (Layer8-Solutions)

Layer8-Solutions GbR was founded in 2011 and has more than 2 years of experience in the
EA domain. The company is vendor of Layer8 which is oered in version 3 at the editorial
deadline. Layer8 supports 14 out of 26 visualization types. Layer8 is a niche player in the
EA tool market. The tool comes as a native desktop application for the Windows platform
and has strong capabilities for the documentation of information flows, simulation of changes
(impact analyses), and automated import of IT infrastructure information. Layer8 provdies
a scalable web-based collaboration platform for sharing, consuming and controlling visualized
information across the organization. Layer8-Web is fully integrated into the Layer8 desktop
application.
Layer8
Vendor
Layer8-Solutions GbR
Founding year
2011
Number of employees
1150
URL
www.layer8-solutions.de
Table 14.1.: Vendor Information of Layer8-Solutions GbR
Tool Name
Layer8
Version
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 14.2.: General Information (Layer8)
206

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Layer8
Table 14.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Layer8)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 14.4.: Binding (Layer8)
207
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 14.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Layer8)
Customization
Layout
Layer8
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 14.6.: Visual Customization (Layer8)
208
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 14.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Layer8)
Layer8

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 14.8.: Information Model Type (Layer8)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 14.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Layer8)
209
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 14.10.: Import Mechanisms (Layer8)
Third Party Tools
Layer8
Cloud Services
Other
Table 14.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Layer8)
210
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 14.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Layer8)
Model Element
Layer8
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 14.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Layer8)
211
14.6. Visualization Examples of Layer8
Layer8
Figure 14.1.: Matrix of Layer8
Figure 14.2.: Flow Diagram of Layer8
212
Layer8
Figure 14.3.: List of Layer8
Figure 14.4.: Graph of Layer8
213
Figure 14.5.: ER Diagram of Layer8

Layer8
Figure 14.6.: Bar Chart of Layer8
214
Figure 14.7.: Treeview of Layer8

Layer8
Figure 14.8.: Pie Chart of Layer8
215
Figure 14.9.: Dashboard of Layer8

Layer8
Figure 14.10.: Radar Diagram of Layer8
216
Figure 14.11.: Line Chart of Layer8

Layer8
Figure 14.12.: Scatter Chart of Layer8
217
Figure 14.13.: Geographic Map of Layer8

Layer8
Figure 14.14.: Gauges of Layer8
218
CHAPTER
15
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
LeanIX

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
15.6. Visualization Examples of leanIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
219
15. leanIX (LeanIX GmbH)

LeanIX GmbH was founded in 2012 and has more than 2 years of experience in the EA domain.
The company is vendor of leanIX which is oered in version 1.7 at the editorial deadline.
leanIX supports 11 out of 26 visualization types. New in the market, leanIX features a nice
LeanIX
Figure 15.1.: Data filter and Visualization of leanIX

user interface (UI) with a consistent design and support for the basic visualization types.
leanIX may convince EA experts when it comes to usability. In particular the multi-facetted
filter (cf. Figure 15.1) empowers-end users for ad-hoc analyses. The Representational State
Transfer (REST) application programming interface (API) can be used to build more complex
queries outside from leanIX in third party tools such as Microsoft Excel.

Vendor
LeanIX GmbH
Founding year
2012
Number of employees
110
URL
www.leanix.net
Table 15.1.: Vendor Information of LeanIX GmbH
220

Tool Name
leanIX
Version
1.7
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 15.2.: General Information (leanIX)

LeanIX
Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 15.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (leanIX)
221

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 15.4.: Binding (leanIX)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
LeanIX
Table 15.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (leanIX)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 15.6.: Visual Customization (leanIX)
222
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 15.7.: Configuration Import/Export (leanIX)

LeanIX
Full Schema
User-defined
Table 15.8.: Information Model Type (leanIX)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 15.9.: Information Model Flexibility (leanIX)
223
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 15.10.: Import Mechanisms (leanIX)
Third Party Tools
LeanIX
Cloud Services
Other
Table 15.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (leanIX)
224
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 15.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (leanIX)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
LeanIX
Table 15.13.: Model Element Import/Export (leanIX)
225
15.6. Visualization Examples of leanIX
LeanIX
Figure 15.2.: Cluster Map of the leanIX
226
Figure 15.3.: Timeline of the leanIX
Figure 15.4.: Flow Diagram of the leanIX
LeanIX
Figure 15.5.: List of the leanIX

227
Figure 15.6.: Bar Chart of the leanIX

LeanIX
Figure 15.7.: BPMN Diagram of the leanIX
228
LeanIX
Figure 15.8.: Bubble Chart of the leanIX
Figure 15.9.: Treeview of the leanIX

229
Figure 15.10.: Pie Chart of the leanIX

LeanIX
Figure 15.11.: Line Chart of the leanIX
230
Figure 15.12.: Geographic Map of the leanIX

LeanIX
231
LeanIX
CHAPTER
16
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
MEGA

16.6. Visualization Examples of MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 242
233
16. MEGA (MEGA International)

MEGA International S.A. was founded in 1991 and has more than 22 years of experience in
the EA domain. The company is vendor of MEGA Architecture which is oered in version
HOPEX V1R1 at the editorial deadline. MEGA Architecture supports 22 out of 26 visualization types. Gartner Research currently sees MEGA Architecture as the leader among the EA
tools [Ga13]. MEGA International S.A. wants to clarify that for the sake of simplicity they
have included only the most basic examples so that it is easier for the viewer to understand.
MEGA Architecture has many more powerful capabilities for visualization, import/export
and metrics functionality.

Vendor
MEGA International S.A.
Founding year
1991
22
Number of employees
251500
URL
www.mega.com
Table 16.1.: Vendor Information of MEGA International S.A.
MEGA
Tool Name
MEGA Architecture
Version
HOPEX V1R1
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 16.2.: General Information (MEGA Architecture)
234

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 16.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (MEGA Architecture)

Binding
MEGA
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 16.4.: Binding (MEGA Architecture)
235
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 16.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (MEGA Architecture)
Layout
Customization
MEGA
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 16.6.: Visual Customization (MEGA Architecture)
236
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 16.7.: Configuration Import/Export (MEGA Architecture)

Full Schema
User-defined
MEGA
Table 16.8.: Information Model Type (MEGA Architecture)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 16.9.: Information Model Flexibility (MEGA Architecture)
237
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 16.10.: Import Mechanisms (MEGA Architecture)
Third Party Tools
MEGA
Cloud Services
Other
Table 16.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (MEGA Architecture)
238
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Portable
Document
Format
(PDF)
Table 16.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (MEGA Architecture)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
MEGA
Table 16.13.: Model Element Import/Export (MEGA Architecture)
239
16.6. Visualization Examples of MEGA Architecture
Figure 16.1.: Matrix of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.2.: Timeline of the MEGA Architecture

240
Figure 16.3.: Flow Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.4.: List of the MEGA Architecture
241
Figure 16.5.: Graph of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.6.: ER Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
242
Figure 16.7.: Bar Chart of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.8.: BPMN Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
243
Figure 16.9.: UML Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.10.: Bubble Chart of the MEGA Architecture
244
Figure 16.11.: Treeview of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.12.: Pie Chart of the MEGA Architecture
245
Figure 16.13.: Dashboard of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.14.: Radar Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
246
Figure 16.15.: EPC Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.16.: ArchiMate Diagram of the MEGA Architecture
247
Figure 16.17.: Line Chart of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.18.: Scatter Chart of the MEGA Architecture
248
Figure 16.19.: Geographic Map of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.20.: Business Model Canvas of the MEGA Architecture
249
Figure 16.21.: Gauges of the MEGA Architecture
MEGA
Figure 16.22.: Treemap of the MEGA Architecture
250
CHAPTER
17
PowerDesigner (SAP AG)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Power
Designer

17.6. Visualization Examples of PowerDesigner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
251
17. PowerDesigner (SAP AG)

SAP Deutschland AG & Co. KG was founded in 1972 and has more than 13 years of experience
in the EA domain. The company is vendor of PowerDesigner which is oered in version
16.5.2 at the editorial deadline. PowerDesigner supports 10 out of 26 visualization types.
PowerDesigner is a fully-fledged meta-modeling platform. It features support for objectoriented models as well as other well-known notations such as Entity Relationship (ER)
models. The tool includes sophisticated features like configurable and customizable model
dierencing. A user can create visualization in PowerDesigner either by manual drag-anddrop operations or apply a set of sophisticated graph layout algorithms, e.g. organic layout,
spring layout. As a fully-fledged meta-modeling platform, PowerDesigner enables to generate
source code for the major programming languages.

Vendor
SAP Deutschland AG &

Co. KG
Founding year
1972
13
Number of employees
>10,000
URL
www.sap.com
Table 17.1.: Vendor Information of SAP Deutschland AG & Co. KG
Power
Designer
Tool Name
PowerDesigner
Version
16.5.2
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 17.2.: General Information (PowerDesigner)
252

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 17.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (PowerDesigner)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Power
Designer
Table 17.4.: Binding (PowerDesigner)
253
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 17.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (PowerDesigner)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 17.6.: Visual Customization (PowerDesigner)
Power
Designer
254
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 17.7.: Configuration Import/Export (PowerDesigner)

Full Schema
User-defined
Power
Designer
Table 17.8.: Information Model Type (PowerDesigner)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 17.9.: Information Model Flexibility (PowerDesigner)
255
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 17.10.: Import Mechanisms (PowerDesigner)
Third Party Tools
Power
Designer
Cloud Services
Other
Table 17.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (PowerDesigner)
256
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 17.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (PowerDesigner)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Power
Designer
Table 17.13.: Model Element Import/Export (PowerDesigner)
257
17.6. Visualization Examples of PowerDesigner
Figure 17.1.: Matrix of the PowerDesigner
Power
Designer
258
Figure 17.2.: Cluster Map of the PowerDesigner
Figure 17.3.: List of the PowerDesigner
Power
Designer
Figure 17.4.: Graph of the PowerDesigner

259
Figure 17.5.: ER Diagram of the PowerDesigner
Power
Designer
Figure 17.6.: BPMN Diagram of the PowerDesigner

260
Figure 17.7.: UML Diagram of the PowerDesigner
Power
Designer
Figure 17.8.: Treeview of the PowerDesigner

261
Figure 17.9.: Business Model Canvas of the PowerDesigner
Power
Designer
Figure 17.10.: Tag Cloud of the PowerDesigner

262
CHAPTER
18
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
process4.biz

18.6. Visualization Examples of process4.biz
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
263
18. process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH)

process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH was founded in 2003 and has more
than 9 years of experience in the EA domain. The company is vendor of process4.biz which is
oered in version 6 at the editorial deadline. process4.biz supports 14 out of 26 visualization
types.
Figure 18.1.: Access management of process4.biz

process4.biz is based on Microsoft Visio and SQL databases. The vendor is advertising the
product as a flexible Business Process Management (BPM), EA management and strategic
IT planning solution. The tool is a highly specialized solution and implemented as a plugin
for Microsoft Visio using an Structured Query Language (SQL) database for storing data.
process4.biz features several templates and reference models for process modeling according
to standards and specifications such as BPMN and Event-driven Process Chain (EPC). A
Database Designer oers a Microsoft Visio-integrated access point to data structures of all
models stored in a database. A central access management control empowers end-users to
define access rights on dierent levels (cf. Figure 18.1).

Vendor
process4.biz
Softwareentwicklungs- und
Vertriebs GmbH
Founding year
2003
Number of employees
1150
URL
www.process4.biz
process4.biz
Table 18.1.: Vendor Information of process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH
264

Tool Name
process4.biz
Version
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 18.2.: General Information (process4.biz)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
process4.biz
Table 18.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (process4.biz)
265

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 18.4.: Binding (process4.biz)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 18.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (process4.biz)
Customization
Layout
process4.biz
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 18.6.: Visual Customization (process4.biz)
266
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 18.7.: Configuration Import/Export (process4.biz)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 18.8.: Information Model Type (process4.biz)

process4.biz
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 18.9.: Information Model Flexibility (process4.biz)
267
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 18.10.: Import Mechanisms (process4.biz)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 18.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (process4.biz)
process4.biz
268
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 18.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (process4.biz)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
process4.biz
Table 18.13.: Model Element Import/Export (process4.biz)
269
18.6. Visualization Examples of process4.biz
Figure 18.2.: Matrix of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.3.: Cluster Map of process4.biz

270
Figure 18.4.: Timeline of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.5.: Flow Diagram of process4.biz
271
Figure 18.6.: List of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.7.: Graph of process4.biz
272
Figure 18.8.: ER Diagram of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.9.: Bar Chart of process4.biz
273
Figure 18.10.: BPMN Diagram of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.11.: UML Diagram of process4.biz
274
Figure 18.12.: Bubble Chart of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.13.: Pie Chart of process4.biz
275
Figure 18.14.: EPC Diagram of process4.biz
process4.biz
Figure 18.15.: Tag Cloud of process4.biz
276
CHAPTER
19
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
QPR
Enterprise
Architect

19.6. Visualization Examples of QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . . . 286
277
19. QPR EnterpriseArchitect (QPR Software)

QPR Software Plc was founded in 1991 and has more than 18 years of experience in the EA
domain. The company is vendor of QPR EnterpriseArchitect which is oered in version 2012.2
at the editorial deadline. QPR EnterpriseArchitect supports 19 out of 26 visualization types.
In the upcoming release in January 2014 QPR EnterpriseArchitect will have new features and
enhancements:
automatic visualization and layout repository objects
automatic switching of association visualization between nesting objects or explicit connectors
harmonization of UI logic regarding diagram explorer and model navigator
support for end user defined catalog and analysis views in navigator

Vendor
QPR Software Plc
Founding year
1991
18
Number of employees
51250
URL
www.qpr.com
Table 19.1.: Vendor Information of QPR Software Plc
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
278

Tool Name
QPR EnterpriseArchitect
Version
2012.2
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 19.2.: General Information (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Table 19.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
279

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 19.4.: Binding (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 19.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
Customization
Layout
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 19.6.: Visual Customization (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
280
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 19.7.: Configuration Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 19.8.: Information Model Type (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Table 19.9.: Information Model Flexibility (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
281
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 19.10.: Import Mechanisms (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 19.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
282
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 19.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 19.13.: Model Element Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect)
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
283
19.6. Visualization Examples of QPR EnterpriseArchitect
Figure 19.1.: Matrix of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.2.: Cluster Map of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect

284
Figure 19.3.: Timeline of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.4.: Flow Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
285
Figure 19.5.: List of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.6.: Graph of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
286
Figure 19.7.: ER Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.8.: Bar Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
287
Figure 19.9.: BPMN Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.10.: UML Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
288
Figure 19.11.: Treeview of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.12.: Pie Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
289
Figure 19.13.: Dashboard of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.14.: Radar Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
290
Figure 19.15.: EPC Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.16.: ArchiMate Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
291
Figure 19.17.: Line Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
Figure 19.18.: Scatter Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
292
Figure 19.19.: Gauges of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
293
QPR
Enterprise
Architect
CHAPTER
20
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
20.6. Visualization Examples of Rational System Architect
. . . . . . . 305
Rational
System
Architect
295
20. Rational System Architect (IBM)

IBM Deutschland GmbH was founded in 1911 and has more than 10 years of experience in
the EA domain. The company is vendor of Rational System Architect which is oered in
version 11.4.2.5 at the editorial deadline. Rational System Architect supports 4 out of 26
visualization types. The Rational System Architect comes as a feature-rich EA tool. It allows
to define metrics utilizing VBA and report macros. Defined metrics can be easily associated
to a visualization via drag-and-drop operations. A so-called Heat Map Manager allows to
run dierent analyses dynamically. This also generates a meaningful legend automatically
such that the interpretation is easy to grasp.
Characteristic for the Rational System Architect is the analysis support. As an example,
Figure 20.1 illustrates an impact analysis in a graph visualization.
Figure 20.1.: Impact analysis in Rational System Architect
Rational
System
Architect
296

Vendor
IBM Deutschland GmbH
Founding year
1911
10
Number of employees
>10.000
URL
www.ibm.com
Table 20.1.: Vendor Information of IBM Deutschland GmbH
Tool Name
Rational System Architect
Version
11.4.2.5
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 20.2.: General Information (Rational System Architect)
Rational
System
Architect
297

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 20.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Rational System Architect)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 20.4.: Binding (Rational System Architect)
Rational
System
Architect
298
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 20.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Rational System Architect)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 20.6.: Visual Customization (Rational System Architect)
Rational
System
Architect
299
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 20.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Rational System Architect)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 20.8.: Information Model Type (Rational System Architect)
Model element
Operation
Rational
System
Architect
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 20.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Rational System Architect)
300
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 20.10.: Import Mechanisms (Rational System Architect)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 20.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Rational System Architect)
Rational
System
Architect
301
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Portable
Document
Format
(PDF)
Table 20.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Rational System Architect)
Model Element
Rational
System
Architect
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 20.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Rational System Architect)
302
20.6. Visualization Examples of Rational System Architect
Figure 20.2.: Matrix of the Rational System Architect
Rational
System
Architect
Figure 20.3.: Cluster Map of the Rational System Architect

303
Figure 20.4.: Graph of the Rational System Architect
Rational
System
Architect
Figure 20.5.: BPMN Diagram of the Rational System Architect

304
CHAPTER
21
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
21.6. Visualization Examples of SAMU Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
SAMU
Repository
305
21. SAMU Repository (Atoll Technologies Ltd)

Atoll Technologies Ltd was founded in 2001 and has more than 10 years of experience in the
EA domain. The company is vendor of SAMU Repository which is oered in version 5.42 at
the editorial deadline. SAMU Repository supports 17 out of 26 visualization types. SAMU
is a simple, yet flexible EA tool that was designed to support dynamic EA practices. All
configuration is done on the graphical user interface. Features include: completely web-based,
fully flexible meta-model. derived relationsgips (substitution), and query-based reporting.
In their continuous eort to provide more comprehensive solutions to their clients, Atoll
Technologies Ltd has worked out an integrated solution stack with the leading business process
analysis vendor Signavio. In practice this integration is realized on two levels:
lightweight: hyperlinks in each tool pointing to associated elements across the tools
full: data synchronization between repositories

Vendor
Founding year
2001
10
Number of employees
1150
URL
www.atollgroup.eu
Table 21.1.: Vendor Information of Atoll Technologies Ltd
Tool Name
SAMU Repository
Version
5.42
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
SAMU
Repository
Table 21.2.: General Information (SAMU Repository)
306

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 21.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (SAMU Repository)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 21.4.: Binding (SAMU Repository)
SAMU
Repository
307
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 21.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (SAMU Repository)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 21.6.: Visual Customization (SAMU Repository)
SAMU
Repository
308
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 21.7.: Configuration Import/Export (SAMU Repository)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 21.8.: Information Model Type (SAMU Repository)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
SAMU
Repository
Table 21.9.: Information Model Flexibility (SAMU Repository)
309
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 21.10.: Import Mechanisms (SAMU Repository)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 21.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (SAMU Repository)
SAMU
Repository
310
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Microsoft
Word
Document
Format
(DOC/DOCX)
Table 21.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (SAMU Repository)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 21.13.: Model Element Import/Export (SAMU Repository)

SAMU
Repository
311
21.6. Visualization Examples of SAMU Repository
Figure 21.1.: Matrix of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.2.: Cluster Map of the SAMU Repository

312
Figure 21.3.: Timeline of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.4.: Flow Diagram of the SAMU Repository
313
Figure 21.5.: List of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.6.: Graph of the SAMU Repository
314
Figure 21.7.: ER Diagram of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.8.: Bar Chart of the SAMU Repository
315
Figure 21.9.: BPMN Diagram of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.10.: Bubble Chart of the SAMU Repository
316
Figure 21.11.: Treeview of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.12.: Pie Chart of the SAMU Repository
317
Figure 21.13.: Dashboard of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.14.: Radar Diagram of the SAMU Repository
318
Figure 21.15.: ArchiMate Diagram of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
Figure 21.16.: Scatter Chart of the SAMU Repository
319
Figure 21.17.: Geographic Map of the SAMU Repository
SAMU
Repository
320
CHAPTER
22
Tricia (infoAsset AG)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
22.6. Visualization Examples of Tricia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Tricia
321
22. Tricia (infoAsset AG)

infoAsset AG was founded in 2000 and has more than 2 years of experience in the EA domain.
The company is vendor of Tricia which is oered in version 3.9 at the editorial deadline. Tricia
supports 9 out of 26 visualization types. infoAsset AG presents a lightweight approach to an
EA tool. Tricia features strong collaboration capabilities. That includes easy to use access
management and end-user-ready meta-modeling facilities. As an university spin-o, their
approach is described in a dissertation [Ne12]. In [HMR+ 12], Hauder et al. present the
idea to match an oer and demand model structurally. This has been implemented and the
tool integrates visualization types in a loosely coupled manner. Tricia provides a wizard (cf.
[RHZ+ 13]) to configure visualizations that display arbitrary concepts of an EA information
model.

Vendor
infoAsset AG
Founding year
2000
Number of employees
5-10
URL
www.infoasset.de
Table 22.1.: Vendor Information of infoAsset AG
Tool Name
Tricia
Version
3.9
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 22.2.: General Information (Tricia)

Tricia
322

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 22.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Tricia)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 22.4.: Binding (Tricia)
Tricia
323
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 22.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Tricia)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 22.6.: Visual Customization (Tricia)
Tricia
324
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 22.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Tricia)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 22.8.: Information Model Type (Tricia)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 22.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Tricia)

Tricia
325
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 22.10.: Import Mechanisms (Tricia)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 22.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Tricia)
Tricia
326
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 22.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Tricia)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 22.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Tricia)
Tricia
327
22.6. Visualization Examples of Tricia
Figure 22.1.: Matrix of Tricia
Figure 22.2.: Cluster Map of Tricia
Tricia
328
Figure 22.3.: Timeline of Tricia
Figure 22.4.: List of Tricia
Tricia
329
Figure 22.5.: Graph of Tricia
Figure 22.6.: Bar Chart of Tricia
Tricia
330
Figure 22.7.: UML Diagram of Tricia
Figure 22.8.: Bubble Chart of Tricia
Tricia
331
Figure 22.9.: Radar Diagram of Tricia
Tricia
332
CHAPTER
23
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
23.6. Visualization Examples of Txture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
333
Txture
23. Txture (QELaB Business Services GmbH)

QELab was founded in 2011 and has more than 1 years of experience in the EA domain. The
company is vendor of Txture which is oered in version 1 at the editorial deadline. Txture
supports 3 out of 26 visualization types. Txture is a true niche player in the EA tool market.
It oers an easy to grasp way to describe the EA in a textual manner. This in particular opens
potential for an automated EA documentation. As a spin of from University of Innsbruck, the
tool and a related case study are also described in a scholar article [FTB+ 13]. As of today,
the tool is based on the Eclipse platform and available as a plugin. Besides this fat-client
version, the tool features a web viewer to define dynamic queries using a powerful wizard.
QELab reports that the current version is changed in order to support textual and web-based
modeling simultaneously.

Vendor
QELab
Founding year
2011
Number of employees
110
URL
www.txture.org
Table 23.1.: Vendor Information of QELab
Tool Name
Txture
Version
Client Platforms
Windows
Linux
MacOS
Browser
iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
Other
Desktop
SaaS
Server
Other
ArchiMate
NAF
DoDAF
PEAF
IAF
TOGAF
MODAF
Zachman
Other
Deployment Approach
EA Frameworks
Table 23.2.: General Information (Txture)
Txture
334

Format
Import
Export
BMP
DOC(X)
HTML
JPG/JPEG
PDF
PNG
PPT(X)
SVG
VSD(X)
Other
Table 23.3.: Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Txture)

Binding
Schema Bindings
Data Filter
Other
Table 23.4.: Binding (Txture)
335
Txture
Generation Approach
Model-Driven
Form-Based
Scripting
Manual Drawing
Other
Table 23.5.: Visualization Generation Approach (Txture)
Layout
Customization

Caption
Color
Orientation
Position
Shape
Size
Other
Automated
Manual
Other
Table 23.6.: Visual Customization (Txture)
Txture
336
Format
Import
Export
CSV
JSON
ODBC
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
TXT
Other
Table 23.7.: Configuration Import/Export (Txture)

Full Schema
User-defined
Table 23.8.: Information Model Type (Txture)
Model element
Operation
Classes
Attributes
Constraints
Type
Constraints
Access
Rights
Create
Modify
Delete
Copy
Merge
Move
Table 23.9.: Information Model Flexibility (Txture)
337
Txture
Import Mechanisms
Pull
Push
Other
Table 23.10.: Import Mechanisms (Txture)
Third Party Tools

Cloud Services
Other
Table 23.11.: Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Txture)
Txture
338
Format
Import
(Data)
Export
(Data)
Import
(Schema)
Export
(Schema)
CSV
JSON
TXT
XMI
XML
XLS(X)
OData
Other
Table 23.12.: Data & Schema Import/Export (Txture)
Model Element
Import
Export
Classes
Objects
Relationships
Attribute Values
Access Rights
Roles
Other
Table 23.13.: Model Element Import/Export (Txture)
339
Txture
23.6. Visualization Examples of Txture
Figure 23.1.: List of Txture
Figure 23.2.: Graph of Txture

Txture
340
Figure 23.3.: Treemap of Txture
341
Txture
Txture
Part III.
Market Demands and Trends
343
CHAPTER
24
Characteristics of the Data Set
Contents
24.1. Information on the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Years engaged in EA management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Industry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Number of Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
24.2. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
By Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
By Job Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
By Experience in EA management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
345
24. Characteristics of the Data Set

In this chapter we briefly describe the data collected in our EA practitioner survey. First, we
report information about participating organizations (i.e. industry sector and size in terms of
number of employees) and participants (i.e. job title and experience in EA management).
24.1. Information on the Organization

We asked our participants to provide us with context information about their organization
(e.g. for how long their organization has been active in the EAM domain).
Years engaged in EA management

Figure 24.1 shows an overview of how long organizations are engaged in EA management. We
10 years
26
8-9 years
6
6-7 years
16
0-1 years
15
2-3 years
24
4-5 years
19
Figure 24.1.: Organizations by Number of Years active in EA management

find a rather diverse portfolio of organizations. Some are just about to start an EA initiative,
some have already gained some experience while others have established EA management for
several years.
Industry Sector
EA management might play a dierent role in dierent domains [HSR+ 13]. To get an
understanding of the organizational context, we asked the participants in which industry
sector their organization has been operating in.
Figure 24.2 shows the sector distribution of the participating organizations; IT, Technology,
Internet and Finance, Insurance, Real Estate make up the largest share.
346
Communica8on
&*U8li8es;*5*
Nonprot;*4*
Other;*5*
Agriculture*&*
Mining;*1*
Consultancy;*7*
Transporta8on;*
5*
Services;*10*
Educa8on*&*
Research;*12*
Finance,*
Insurance*&*
Real*Estate;*27*
Retail*&*
Wholesale;*9*
Manufacturing;*
9*
Government;*13*
IT*&*
Technology;*33*
Health*Care;*7*
Figure 24.2.: Organizations by Industry Sector
Micro*(1R10)*
7*
Large*(251+)**
87*
Small*(11R50)*
10*
Medium*
(51R250)*
5*
Figure 24.3.: Organizations by Number of Employees
Number of Employees
Figure 24.3 illustrates the size of the participating organizations based on the number of
employees. As depicted, the majority of the participants work in a large scale enterprise
(>250 employees). Medium (51 - 250 employees), small (11 - 50 employees) and micro (1 10 employees) companies account for smaller shares.
24.2. Participants
By Country
Figure 24.4 depicts the locations of the participants at the country level. There is a strong
bias towards German-speaking countries: 66 of 109 participants work in Austria, Germany
or Switzerland. The second largest group consists of participants living in the United States.
Overall, the survey spread globally since EA experts from South Africa, Australia, Russia,
Canada, India, and other countries participated in our survey as well.
347
Switzerland; 10
United States; 11
Austria; 6 Great Britain; 6

Sweden; 5
Canada; 3
Australia; 3
India; 2
Netherlands; 2
South Africa; 2
Other; 15
Germany; 50
Belgium; 2
Poland; 1
Denmark; 1
New Zealand; 1
Iran; 1
European Union; 1
France; 1
Russia; 1
Figure 24.4.: Participants by Country
By Job Title
Solutions
Architect
Senior
8
Manager
9
Researcher/
Scientist
5
Other
1
Business Architect/Analyst
2
Consultant
(IT/Management)
15
CxO
9
Developer
2
58
Figure 24.5.: Participants by Job Title

Figure 24.5 shows the distribution of job titles among participants. Unsurprisingly, Enterprise Architects make up the majority of participants, followed by consultants (14%), senior
managers (8%) and CxOs (8%).
By Experience in EA management
The level of experience in a field may highly impact an individuals perception of tool support
in a discipline. Thus, we asked the participants to provide information on their level of
experience in EA management in number of years.
Figure 24.6 shows the results. Most participants have more than 3 years of experience in
EA management. The figures suggest that the information we acquired reflect EA expert
knowledge since only 5 novices count to the group of participants.
348
10 years
25
0-1 years
5
2-3 years
20
8-9 years
8
6-7 years
25
4-5 years
26
Figure 24.6.: EA management experience of the participants
349
CHAPTER
25
EA Expert Feedback Usage & Demands
Contents
25.1. EA Visualization Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
25.2. Usage of Visualization Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
25.3. Update frequency of Visualization Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
25.4. Customization of Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
25.5. Export of Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
25.6. EA Information Model Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
25.7. Integration with Third Party Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
350
25. EA Expert Feedback Usage & Demands

In this chapter we present results of the practitioner survey. Please learn more about the
context of the data collection before you interpret the data set (see Chapter 24).
25.1. EA Visualization Tools

Visio (Microsoft)
Powerpoint (Microsoft)
Excel (Microsoft)
Enterprise Architect (Sparx Systems Pty Ltd)
ARIS IT Architect & Designer (Software AG)
Archi (Institute of Educational Cybernetics)
planningIT (alfabet AG)
Rational Suite (IBM)
Troux Enterprise Portfolio Management Suite (Troux Technologies)
ADOit (BOC)
iServer Enterprise Archtect (Orbus Software)
MEGA Solution for Enterprise Architecture Suite (MEGA International)
Tricia (Infoasset)
The Essential Project (Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd)
PowerDesigner (SAP-Sybase)
Eclipse Agile EA (The Eclipse Foundation)
Casewise Modeler Suite (Casewise Ltd)
other
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 25.1.: Which Tools do EA experts use to create EA visualizations?

In general, EA experts seem to be neutral or satisfied with their EA visualization tools. 9%
of the participants are very satisfied with the EA tool, 24% satisfied, 49% have a neutral
opinion, 16% are dissatisfied and only 3% are very dissatisfied.
Figure 25.1 shows a strong usage of Micosofts Office products (Visio, Powerpoint, and Excel).
The most frequently used EA tool is the Enterprise Architect (see Chapter 11) followed by Aris
(see Chapter 8), iteraplan (see Chapter 13) and Archi (see [In12]). In near future, planningIT
and ARIS will share a synchronized release cycle and their customer base (see Chapter 8).
However, our data is not exhaustive and does not allow making predictions of how the entire
EA market will develop (cf. also Section 27.2).
We also asked the EA experts whether they plan to migrate to dierent EA tool or version.
In total, we had 35 answers for this question. 11% plan to migrate to a newer version of the
current EA tool, 3% will use a dierent tool of the same vendor whereas 57% will switch the
EA tool as well as vendor. 29% named other ways how they plan to replace their current EA
tool.
351
82
82
Matrix
Cluster Map
Timeline
Flow Diagram
List
Graph/Tree
ER Diagram
Bar Chart
BPMN Diagram
UML Diagram
Bubble Chart
Treeview
Pie Chart
Dashboard
Kiviat/Spider
EPC Diagram
ArchiMate
Line Chart
Scatter Chart
Geographical Map
Business Model Canvas
Gauges
Treemap
Tag Cloud
Sunburst
3D
77
74
73
64
63
54
51
50
50
48
42
41
39
29
28
27
24
21
18
12
11
8
8
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 25.2.: Usage of Visualization Types by the EA experts
25.2. Usage of Visualization Types

In the first part of the survey, we asked EA experts which visualization types they use. We
provided schematic illustrations. Figure 25.2 displays the aggregate usage of visualization
types.
As expected, some visualization types are used very frequently. Thus, they might be considered typical. The most frequently used visualization types display relational information
(matrices, cluster maps, flow diagrams and graphs) or time information (timeline).
Our second observation is the role of standard notations. Even though there seems to be no
single standard notation, in general, notations such as UML, BPMN, EPC, or ER play an
important role in EA management.
Interestingly, visualization of quantitative data seems to be less important in EA management.
However, this might be a result of low data quality. We investigate this hypothesis below.
In addition to the 26 visualization types that were presented to the them, practitioners were
allowed to provide us with examples of other visualizations they were using as well. Two such
visualizations have been uploaded. However, after thoughtful consideration, we identified
these visualizations as instances of a dashboard and a gauge, respectively.
Figure 25.3 shows the usage of visualization type among practitioners.
352
Matrix
Cluster Map
Timeline
Flow Diagram
List
Graph/Tree
ER Diagram
Bar Chart
BPMN Diagram
UML Diagram
Bubble Chart
Treeview
Pie Chart
Dashboard
Kiviat/Spider
EPC Diagram
ArchiMate
Line Chart
Scatter Chart
Geographical Map
Gauges
Treemap
Tag Cloud
Sunburst
3D
82
82
77
74
73
64
63
54
51
50
50
48
3
6
42
41
39
29
28
27
24
21
18
12
1
11
7
8
5
8
4
3
0%
5
9
2
6
4
8
10
14
96
91
96
97
102
10%
20%
30%
40%
Yes
50%
Planned
78
74
80
79
83
82
60%
1
2
10
9
51
50
56
49
55
61
54
62
70%
42
80%
34
34
36
25
17
18
90%
100%
No
Figure 25.3.: Usage and Usage Intentions of Visualization Types by the EA experts
25.3. Update frequency of Visualization Types

The update frequency of visualizations diers among dierent stakeholders.
Figure 25.4.: How frequently are visualizations updated for specific stakeholders?
25.4. Customization of Visualizations

In our EA practitioner survey, 75 out of 109 participants stated that they customize visualizations.
353
Other
11
98
An external specialist
10
99
Customized within the organization
62
47
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Figure 25.5.: Who does the customization of EA visualizations?

As indicated by Figure 25.5, most customization is done internally (i.e. within the organization). Participants who chose Other indicated that adaptations are done by the respondent.
VDSL
62
Model driven
51
Form-based
21
Script (text DSL)

other
18
11
47
80
89
7 1
0%
43
101
20%
40%
Used
Planned
60%
80%
100%
Not used
Figure 25.6.: How do EA practitioners customize visualizations?

We asked the 75 participants who customize visualizations how they adjust their visualizations. Figure 25.6 shows that the majority neither uses scripting nor wizards. Even though
multiple answers were possible, to our surprise, EA experts stated that the visualization is
customized manually.
We asked the practitioners which visual attributes they customize. Figure 25.7 shows that
they generally customize a broad spectrum of visual attributes such as colors, position, size,
legend, font, shape and orientation.
354
Color
58
16
0
Position
47
Size
46
Legend
45
Font
28
2
42
Shape
38
Orientation
37
0
10
27
28
31
36
20
30
Used
37
40
Planned
50
60
70
80
No
Figure 25.7.: Which visual attributes do EA experts customize?
25.5. Export of Visualizations

Our considerations for the next question is that one particular way to customize a visualization
is to export it and post-process the visualization using a third-party application. Another important use case that calls for an export of a visualization is printing a visualization [SMR12].
Export formats range from flat files (Bitmap (BMP), Joint Photographic Experts Group
(JPG/JPEG), Portable Network Graphics (PNG), etc.) to formats that may preserve the
logical structure visualized (Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft Powerpoint Format (PPT/PPTX), Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), Hypertext Markup Language (HTML),
etc.). Preserving the logical structure could ease post-processing. However, although some
file formats theoretically can keep structural information, EA tools do not necessarily make
use of such facilities. In our next question, we asked what format are supported for export of
visualizations. Figure 25.8 shows that PDF is the dominating export format.
PDF
63
DOC, DOCX
42
JPG, JPEG
40
PPT,PPTX
32
PNG
32
SVG
9
0%
69
69
74
24
BMP
68
35
VSD, VSDX
65
38
HTML
77
84
0
10%
45
100
20%
30%
40%
Used
50%
Planned
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not used
Figure 25.8.: Which export formats do EA experts use?
355
25.6. EA Information Model Adaptation

Next to the visualization types, we asked whether they are adapting the EA information
model and, if so, how. First, we wanted to find out whether a common standard for an EA
information model emerged in practice. Our hypothesis was that there is no such standard
and EA information models are organization specific to a large extend. The data shows that
47 (43%) participants use a predefined schema (EA information model) which is shipped with
(i.e. provided by) their EA tool. In contrast 62 (57%) participants use an organization specific
EA information model.
Access rights
57
52
Type Constraints
69
Cardinality Constraints
40
61
48
Relationships
35
74
Attribute
36
73
Class
40
0%
10%
20%
69
30%
40%
Static
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Edit
Figure 25.9.: Which concepts are adapted by EA experts?

Figure 25.9 illustrates that the most frequently adapted concepts are relationships, attributes,
and classes. Access rights, cardinalities, and types seem to be not as important as reflecting
on the right terminology, organization-specific structures and attributes.
EA information model adaptations range from minor to substantial changes of the overall
structure of the model. To shed light on the nature of these adaptations, we asked which
operations practitioners use to adapt the information model. Figure 25.10 illustrates the
operations that are used by practitioners to modify their EA information model.
25.7. Integration with Third Party Tools

Figure 25.11 illustrates the integration of EA tools with third party software. We asked
whether practitioners have integrated their EA tool with a product from one of these categories
or plan to do so in the foreseeable future. An interesting observation is that project portfolio
management tools rank first, followed by configuration management databases and change
356

Create
Access rights
47
Type Constraints
37
Cardinality Constraints
40
31
Attribute
70
14
31
49
51
63
57
50
Copy
33
26
39
68
Delete
41
Relationships
Class
Modify
21
Merge
11
13
50
20
49
45
100
150
24
25
17
18
17
200
250
Figure 25.10.: Which operations are used by EA experts to adapt an EA information model?
management tools. We refer the interested reader to [FBH+ 13a]. In this paper, we analyzed
the information quality of dierent information sources in a joint eort with colleagues from
the University of Innsbruck. Additional material on automating model maintenance can be
found in [BEG+ 12, HMR12, RHF+ 13].
357
Yes
Planned
17
No
10
13
82
14
82
92
94
License Management/IT Asset Management Tools
95
Infrastructure Monitoring/Scanning Tools
10
93
Cloud Services
97
9
92
97
4 4
0%
101
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Figure 25.11.: Which information sources are integrated with the EA tool?
358
CHAPTER
26
Trends in EA Management and Tools
Contents
26.1. Increasing Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
26.2. The Role of Standardized Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
26.3. Major pain points of practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Organizational Issues and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
The Right Level of Abstraction, Diversity of Tools, and Presentation . . . . 364
Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Ivory Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Data and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
26.4. Feature list and improvements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Visualizations and Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

Customization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Visual Interaction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Interoperability and Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
359
26. Trends in EA Management and Tools

In [BBDF+ 12], we reported on the development of EA management and tools as of 2011.
In that publication, we put focus on dierent IT developments and trends such as cloud
computing.
On the one hand, the present study puts emphasis on the analysis of visualizations. A key
aspect of the study is to compare dierent EA tools by visualization support as well as
configuration aspects. On the other hand, we put a strong focus on practitioners and actual
market demands. This demands are reported in the following based on qualitative feedback
from our 109 survey participants.
26.1. Increasing Variety

The set of exemplary visualizations provided by tool vendors contains a wide variety of mixed
visualization types (cf. Chapter 1). Variety exists both in terms of semantics as well as
visual appearance. In the course of our study, we observed that EA tools tend to implement
highly specific visualizations tailored to very concrete EA concerns. However, we do not see
a consolidation of EA visualization types. On the contrary, we see many singular variants of
visualization types.
26.2. The Role of Standardized Notations

Looking at the collected data, we see that modeling notations such as UML, BPMN, ER, EPC,
or ArchiMate are used for specific aspects of EA management in practice . These notations
have a strong advantage over customized visualizations: precisely defined semantics. However,
at the same time, we also see that no single standard notation seems to be suffice to represent
all relevant aspects. Instead, a mixture of complementary visualizations is used to analyze
and communicate EA related information in practice.
26.3. Major pain points of practitioners

In the final part of the survey, we collected major pain points and problems in EA management
practice with respect to visualizations and tools. Table 26.1 lists the ten most frequently
challenges in EA management as surveyed in an adjacent study [HSR+ 13]. In the following
we map the problems and major pain points the EA experts report in our survey to these
challenges. Were appropriate, we refer the interested reader to literature that also reported
on these problems or seeks to cope with the problem.
One participant emphasizes that the visualization of historical data is a problem which confirms our observation in [RM13].
360

Agree
Neither
Disagree
No response
Challenge
Ad hoc EAM demands
89
89,90%
6,06%
4,04%
3,03%
Unclear business goals
84
84,85%
11
11,11%
4,04%
3,03%
Hard to find experienced

enterprise architects
82
87,23%
8,51%
4,26%
8,51%
EA demands unclear for

EAM team
74
75,51%
13
13,27%
11
11,22%
4,08%
Enterprise environment
changes too quickly
70
71,43%
9,18%
19
19,39%
4,08%
Conflicting interests
among stakeholders
69
74,19%
15
16,13%
9,68%
9,68%
EAM team focuses primarily on IT
67
67,68%
9,09%
23
23,23%
3,03%
Reluctant information
providers
62
64,58%
14
14,58%
20
20,83%
6,25%
Unavailable stakeholders
49
51,04%
26
27,08%
21
21,88%
6,25%
Late valuation of EAM

through stakeholders
47
51,09%
26
28,26%
19
20,65%
10
10,87%
Table 26.1.: Ten most relevant challenges in EA management [HSR+ 13]
Configuration
Another pain point is the configuration of visualizations by end users. A novel way to provide
end-users a means to configure complex visualizations is proposed in our recent publication
(see [RHZ+ 13]).
A
Derived Relationship
Ax
Bx
Figure 26.1.: Derived Relationships

One surveyed EA expert annotates that the [EA] Tool can not visualize/calculate all derived
relationships between objects automatically. Figure 26.1 depicts this issue mentioned by
the participant. Let A and B be objects with properties Ax and Bx . The expert wants to
visualize communication of between A and B if the objects communicate via Ax and Bx . At
361

the present time and in line with this EA expert, we diagnose a lack of support for derived
as well as transitive relationships.
Organizational Issues and Governance

Other issues address organizational issues and lack of governance structures of EA management. Although, an EA tool cannot solve these issues, we include these issues in this report
to properly reflect the status-quo of the discipline.
EA experts report on a lack of
funding,
understanding,
EA maturity,
consensus,
stakeholder buy-in, and
acceptance of governance roles & duties by business.
This underpins our motivation in the introduction stating a successful EA management function seeks to involve stakeholders early on (cf. Chapter 1). One practitioner mentions that
a diversity of approaches in dierent departments may be an obstacle. In particular since
such an environment requires to coordinate all IT activities, where responsibilities are heavily
fragmented.
Outsources or boundaries between departments can also be an issue that has been reported
by experts. Especially an alignment of strategy, architecture, and release planning without IT operations can be challenging. Another expert states that business units are very
autonomous and the organization has not enough architects.
One EA expert mentions politics and dierences in approaches in the dierent organizations
as an important factor. The expert continues that limited governance to steer thing centrally
is another issue. This goes in line with our results presented in []: a federated structure
is more likely to succeed in EA, i.e. a central point for decision making with federated
responsibilities.
The Right Level of Abstraction, Diversity of Tools, and Presentation

One practitioner reports that management regards the EA tool as too complex and uses spread
sheet applications or presentation software. Against this background, the export format of
EA tools should be reconsidered by EA tool vendors.
Another expert reports on gaps between strategic, business, information system, and technology architecture. These gaps always result in a lot of additional manual work and periodic
synchronization of architectures documented partially.
362

One EA expert reports that the hordes of [consultancies] that only seem to use Office tools
as another pain point. This calls for an intermediate format as data exchange between the
dierent tools.
Data Quality
Data quality aspects are not to underestimate. In [AHR14] we report on this issue in the
context of regulatory requirements. However, in general data quality and up-to-date information within an EA tool is another crucial factor for a successful an EA management initiative.
Many experts confirm this statement and call for more flexible and dynamic visualizations.
One expert in particular mentions that the EA is not alive, but just documented. One way
to increase data quality is to integrate operative information, e.g. of enterprise service buses.
In Grunow et al. [GMR12], we report on perceived data quality within such an enterprise
service bus system.
Another expert notes that EA management is currently unable to provide a holistic picture
with information that is relevant for dierent perspectives. In addition, one expert even states
that EA information is not used for decision-making. This leads to a lack of credibility of
EA information which is confirmed by many experts.
In contrast to our recent publication in collaboration with University of Innsbruck [FBH+ 13b],
one expert states that the data quality of the repository, especially when defining models
at the lower levels (solution architecture or physical applications) is critical. One expert
brings us to raised the question why the data quality of EA models is insufficient. The expert
states that users do not depend on the information within the EA repository. The expert
continues that it is always a secondary source and gives an example. Users query the EA
repository for installed applications. However, they depend on other sources. Consequently,
there is a trust issue with the completeness, actuality of the information maintained in the
EA repository.
Return on Investment
Five participants mentioned that EA management lacks of proven value and thus EA management is too expensive. One participant in underpins that it is a necessity to develop a
funding case first and establish business value of EA management.
Interoperability
Many participants report on information islands within their enterprise. One expert states
that there is no consolidated repository of artifacts; no integrated EA management solution.
Many experts claim that there is no out-of-the-box integration of operative applications [...]
and project portfolio. Other experts state that the information models of the EA tool are
inflexible and static information models are an issue.
363

One expert claims that in larger organization a number of EA tools are used. The expert
states that the various tools have areas of immaturity and it is taking a fairly long time for
required functionalities to be brought out.
Ivory Tower
In [HMR12] we report on the ivory tower syndrome (cf. Table 26.1). This is confirmed by
one practitioner mentioning the not-invented-here syndrome, i.e. acceptance of before agreed
artifacts. This constantly observed syndrome
underpins the collaborative nature of a successful EA management function,
the need to transparency early on, and
stakeholder involvement when building an EA information model [RHM13].
Data and Maintenance

Central to an EA tool is the collection and management of information. However, an EA
expert states that manually entering the data using a graphical tool is expensive and errorprone. Some go even further and state that their tool is not suitable for EA management.
Another EA expert reports on problems that arise when contradicting information may exist
and calls for support to find consistent data (sources) to decide which data(source) is valid.
26.4. Feature list and improvements

We asked for possible improvements and features an EA tool should provide according to the
EA experts. The participants were able to provide their answers as free text. As part of
our analysis, we grouped similar and matching demands into topic clusters. In the following
subsections, we introduce each cluster.
Visualizations and Appearance

Most practitioners call for a better visualization support such as
simpler visualizations,
more intuitive,
nice reports for management (without external tools, e.g. Cognos),
visualizing information within the version control system,
multi-perspective visualizations with dierent layers (product, business model, etc.),
visualization templates,
364

visualization of roadmaps,
visualization of the architecture as an evolving system over time.
Layouting
While layouting is a matter of customization to a large extent, EA experts wish for enhanced
layouting support.
One practitioner describes the problem in more detail:
In a first step, the visualization is generated in a model-driven manner. Then,
the layout is altered manually by the expert. In a third step, the underlying
information changes and the visualization is generated again. The problem is that
minor changes in the information may obscure the entire layout. Although the
new layout may optimize after certain dimensions, the EA experts demand that
the existing layout prevails and only changed information is added. The problem
is that most layout algorithms calculate the positions based on the entirety of
the rendered data. That in particular means the algorithms do not distinguish
between the existing information and added, changed, and deleted information.
Export Formats
In addition, EA experts have a demand for advanced export facilities. In particular, support
for file formats which preserve structural information for post-processing is often lacking. In
this context, Microsoft Powerpoint (PPT/PPTX) and Visio (Microsoft Visio Format (VSD/VSDX)) have been mentioned particularly. One practitioner wishes for the ability to
export visualizations as packaged Data-Driven Documents (D3 ) visualization (cf. [BOH11]).
This would allow manual customization and presentation using standard web technology.
Customization
Practitioners call for better support for customization of visualizations as well. One practitioner wants to have enhanced customization facilities especially for publishing of defined IT
architectures (cf. Section 26.4). More general the usability of customization facilities should
be improved to lower the barrier for end-users.
Visual Interaction
Another issue mentioned by EA experts is the interaction with visualizations. This often is
refereed to as live-data, interactive visualization or dynamic visualization. EA experts
want to get means to flexibly explore visualizations and influence visualizations with regards
to contents. This includes, for instance, adding and deleting elements after generation. On
the one hand, this falls into the category of export and customization. On the other hand,
propagating visual changes to the repository is more sophisticated [SMR12].
365

One practitioner wishes for enhanced support to perform visual impact (dependency) analyses.
Another EA expert proposes a specific feature to perform gap analyses as well as to govern
roadmaps and trace the impact to the business architecture.
Interoperability and Collaboration

Many EA experts call for better integration with third party tools.
In line with our research agenda for automated EA documentation [HMR12], one expert
stated that the organization wants to gather as much information as possible in an automated way. A similar statement expresses demand for interfaces for integration with other
systems containing data that contribute to the IT-inventory. Another expert asks for a better
connection between design and runtime: information in the EA repository should reflect the
reality more accurately. Practitioners wish to get open interfaces for integration of diverse
tools/repositories and better integration with other sources. One expert calls for maximum capabilities in importing and exporting information from and to other data sources
respectively, full fledged integration between EAM and UML, freely available reusable EAM
content like third party software catalog and alike.
One provided feature request comes particularly close to the approach of Txture (cf. Chapter 23). The expert is looking for a possibly to have a DSL-like textual representation of
the architecture model and tool support for validation, auto-completion, refactoring, a query
language as well as a generator for visualization diagrams. The expert argues that such
an approach could decrease model maintenance costs and increase usability. With respect
to interoperability, one experts suggests that the EA toolset should conform to the OMG
Interchange Diagram metamodel.
Another EA expert points out that interoperability is not only a concern of technical interfaces
but process integration and collaboration support as well. A fellow practitioner calls, for
instance, for notifications of users [...] on changes which are of specific interest to them.
Information Model
Another important topic addressed by the EA experts is the information model. The survey
participants call for more flexibility as well as concrete extensions such as strategic goals or
geographical data as building blocks for an information model. In addition, they ask for
improved facilities to link objects. One suggestion is to maintain links as distinct objects
which may have attributes.
Another topic is the creation of planned states. Practitioners call for better usability to create
scenarios (to-be) or alternative architectures. One participant wants to store changes to the
architecture as a change history, i.e. the creation of immutable versions.
366
Queries
The creation of reports and visualizations often comes with the need to aggregate data or
query data in more sophisticated ways. This is reflected in the demands of EA experts.
The participants call for enhanced capabilities for data aggregation on logical structuring
elements (e.g. domains). Two practitioners suggest to adopt an ontological approach.
Many other practitioners call for
BI functionality,
support to query and visualize transitive relationships, and
an analysis of semi-structured data.
Usability
An important factor for end-user acceptance is usability. Practitioners state that the models
shipped with EA tools are often too complex to communicate. They ask for easy-to-use and
simple modeling facilities. One expert explicitly states that (s)he prefers ease-of-use over
accuracy. Another expert says that user interfaces should be more intuitive.
Other
The EA experts mentioned other tool issues they encounter in practice such as lack of:
support for simulations,
multitenancy,
support for integrated life-cycle management,
ad-hoc reporting capabilities, and
stability.
367
CHAPTER
27
Conclusion
Contents
27.1. Key observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
27.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
27.3. Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
368
27. Conclusion
In this chapter, we conclude the report. First, we discuss the limitations of the study. Then,
we give an outlook on future research in EA tools and visualizations.
27.1. Key observations

A general observation is the overall improvement of facilities that empower end-users to adapt
model bindings as well as the information model.
Another key observation is the shift towards web-based solutions. We see a clear trend from
read-only access browser support to feature rich web application clients.
Support for interactivity in visualizations has been increased at the same time. For current EA
tools, it is no longer sufficient to just display information but to enable in-place interaction.
This includes visual manipulation and analysis. More and more tools facilitate post-processing
by supporting export formats that preserve the structure of the visualization (vector graphics).
An additional aspect is the propagation of change such that data is manipulated through visual
interactions.
The study also revealed that there is a strong demand for additional facilities to customize the
EA information model. Most vendors confirmed that their tool supports an adaptation of the
EA information model. However, they are multiple approaches to support model adaptations
among the tools.
Some visualization types are used more often than others. The 5 most widely used visualization types are cluster map, matrix, graph, timeline and flow diagram. In almost every second
provided usage scenario, one of them is used (48%, n = 1498).
Another finding is that some visualization types are particularly relevant to specific stakeholders and used more often than others except for a few common types (i.e. cluster map,
matrix, graph, timeline, flow diagram). Our participants report that
Bubble charts are primarily used to communicate to management (Business as well as
IT, including C-level)
BPMN is mostly used to visualize information for business analysts and management
(non C-level)
UML is very relevant for enterprise and solution architects
ER diagrams are particularly popular among enterprise architects, solution architects
and business analysts
Dashboards are mainly targeted at C-level stakeholders or enterprise architects
EPC is significantly used by business analysts
ArchiMate is almost primarily used by enterprise architects
Bar charts, radar charts and pie charts are most popular among C-level management,
enterprise architects and IT managers
369
27. Conclusion
Our study revealed diering update frequency patterns among dierent stakeholder groups.
Visualizations for C-level management are mostly updated on a quarterly or monthly basis.
In contrast, business analysts, solution architects as well as lower and middle level managers
with business focus tend to demand for more frequent updates (e.g. on a weekly basis). A
significant share of solutions architects even asks for daily updates.
27.2. Limitations
In this section, we briefly detail the limitations of the survey and point out some potential biases. This report includes empirical data. One should be cautious when interpreting empirical
data. For instance, group characteristics of the participants and design of the survey(s) might
influence the results. Therefore, it is important to put the results into context. While we
carefully considered each single design decision, we would like to point out that the following
factors might have biased the outcome of the study.
Information on EA Tools is based on survey results. All information included in this report has
been provided by EA tool vendors. In contrast to [MBL+ 08], we did not assess the tools
ourselves. We reviewed provided information as good as possible. However, we assume
and have reason to believe that participants provided sincere answers. That said, we
welcome any proposals for corrections or improvements.
Empirical basis. The identification of trends is based on information provided by a limited
sample of EA practitioners (i.e. 109 participants). While the sample size is reasonable
by scientific standards, an even larger empirical basis for further statistical analysis
might provide even more confidence in some observations and interpretations. This
study has been initiated from within the heart of Europe, this and other factors of our
invited practitioners constitute potential biases to the results described in more detail
in Part III of this report.
Survey design. A particular bias addresses the usage of visualization types in EA management.
In the survey, we presented the visualization types in a particular order. Ideally, the
order should have been randomized. However, due to technical limitations of the survey
system, we stuck to a fixed sequence of visualization types. The following lists show the
ordering of visualization types in the survey as well as according to provided information
370
27. Conclusion
about actual usage in practice:
Order of visualization types as provided to
the EA experts in the online survey:
Order of visualization types per actual usage by 109 EA experts:
1. Cluster Map
1. Matrix
2. Matrix
2. Cluster Map
3. Graph
3. Timeline
4. Timeline
4. Flow Diagram
5. Bubble Chart
5. List
6. Scatter Chart
6. Graph
7. Treemap
7. ER Diagram
8. Treeview
8. Bar Chart
9. Radar Diagram
9. BPMN Diagram
10. Tag Cloud
10. UML Diagram
11. Flow Diagram
11. Bubble Chart
12. Dashboard
12. Treeview
13. 3D Visualization
13. Pie Chart
14. Gauges
14. Dashboard
15. Sunburst
15. Radar Diagram
16. ER Diagram
16. EPC Diagram
17. UML Diagram
17. ArchiMate Diagram
18. Business Model Canvas
18. Line Chart
19. BPMN Diagram
19. Scatter Chart
20. EPC Diagram
20. Geographic Map
21. ArchiMate Diagram
21. Business Model Canvas
22. Pie Chart
22. Gauges
23. Bar Chart
23. Treemap
24. List
24. Tag Cloud
25. Line Chart
25. Sunburst
26. Geographic Map
26. 3D Visualization
371
27. Conclusion
27.3. Outlook
This report about the results of the Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014
provides an analysis of 19 tools of 18 vendors. EA tools are an essential means to manage
the EA. Crucial criteria for the buying decision include 1) the way visualizations look like, 2)
how these are configured, and 3) how an information model can be adapted to organization
specific terminology and concepts such as attributes and relationships. Given the importance
of visualization in the EA management function, the look and feel of visualizations can be a
decisive factor whether to buy or not to buy a specific EA tool.
In this report, we present 26 synthesized visualization types. These generic visualization types
have been extracted during a rigorous analysis of a large collection of screenshots provided by
each of the 18 tool vendors. A description of each tool vendor and respective oerings as well
as a comprehensive overview of technical capabilities are provided. For each visualization type
we show concrete examples who they look in the 19 analyzed EA tools (if supported). We
further list configuration capabilities of the EA tools, the ability to adapt the EA information
model as well as integration of third party tools. In the final part of this study, we report on
results of our survey among 109 EA experts. In that survey, we put focus on current usage
behavior and future market demands. In addition, we provide a list of pain points that were
reported by EA experts.
Compared to our study in 2008 [MBL+ 08], we find more sophisticated visualization capabilities. While the field of EA management evolved over the course of the past years, we still see
a wide range of rather idiosyncratic visualization types applied in practice.
372
APPENDIX
Long List
Organization
Product
AB Conseil
SOLU-QIQ
Artemis International
Accept360
Adaptive Inc
Adaptive Enterprise Architecture Manager
Agilense
pulinco engineering ag
TopEase suite
alfabet AG
planningIT
Allen Systems Group Inc
ASG-Manager Products
Artimis International Solutions Corp.
Enterprise
SAMU Repository
Avolution Pty Ltd
ABACUS
BiZZdesign
BiZZdesign Architect
BOC AG
ADOit
BTM Corporation
BTM 360 Product Suite
ca technologies
Clarity PPM for IT Governance
CACI International Inc
SIMPROCESS
Casewise Ltd
Casewise Modeler Suite
comma soft
infonea
Embarcadero
ER/Studio XE2
Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
The Essential Project
373
A. Long List
Enterprise Elements Inc.
Elements repository
Foresight Systems M&S
Foresight Tool Suite
FrankITecture Solutions
MappIT
Future Tech Systems Inc
Envision VIP
GoAgile
Hewlett Packard
Mercury Project and Portfolio Management Center
IBM Corp
Rational System Architect
IBM Corp
Rational Software Architect
IBM Corp
Rational Requirements Composer
IBM Corp
Rational Asset Manager
IBM Corp
Rational Asset Analyzer
IBM Corp
Rational Software Architect for WebSphere Software
IBM Corp
Rational Rhapsody Architect for Systems Engineers
IBM Corp
Rational Data and Application Modeling Bundle
INOVA Engineering GmbH
Merge Pro
Institute of Educational Cybernetics
Archi
Intelligile Inc.
Model, Analyze, Publish (MAP)
iteratec GmbH
iteraplan
Knotion Consulting Pty Ltd
Universal Data Element Framework
Knotion Consulting Pty Ltd
SYNAP-C Solution
Layer8-Solutions
Layer8.professional
LeanIX GmbH
leanIX
SOA Software Inc
Logidex
MEGA International SA
MEGA Solution for Enterprise Architecture Suite
OpenText
ProVision
Modeliosoft
Modelio
Salamander Technologies
MooD Platform
Oracle Corp.
Oracle Enterprise Manager
Oracle Corp.
Oracle Enterprise Repository
Orbus Software
iServer Enterprise Archtect
pinnacle EM Specialists
Primavera ProSight
process4.biz
process4.biz
Promis Ltd
EVA Netmodeler
QPR Oyj
QPR EnterpriseArchitect
QualiWare ApS
Enterprise Architect Suite
SAP-Sybase
PowerDesigner
374
A. Long List
Select Business Solutions Inc.
Select Solution Factory
Select Business Solutions Inc.
Select Architect
SOA Software Inc
Lifecylce Manager
Software AG
ARIS IT Architect & Designer
Software AG
ARIS Business Architect & Designer
Software AG
ARIS ArchiMate Modeler
Software AG
ARIS Business Optimizer
Software AG
ARIS IT Inventory
Sparx Systems Pty Ltd
Troux Technologies Inc
Troux Enterprise Portfolio Management Suite
Visible Systems Corp.
Visible Advantage
Visible Systems Corp.
Enterprise Products
Infoasset
Tricia
QE LaB Business Services GmbH
txture
OpenSource eclipse AgileEA
Eclipse Agile EA
Palisade
Risk and Decision Analysis
QPR
QPR Process Guide Xpress Enterprise Architect
375
List of Figures
2.1.
2.2.
Iterative Process of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function . . . . 13

Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise Architecture [Wi07, BEG+ 12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
Underlying Method of the EA Visualization Tool Survey 2014 . . . . . . . . . 30

Mixed visualization types: Graph and Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Conceptual framework for model-driven EA visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.
5.2.
Our modified layered view on Enterprise Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Overview of 26 visualization types found in our study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
6.7.
6.8.
6.9.
6.10.
6.11.
6.12.
6.13.
6.14.
6.15.
6.16.
6.17.
6.18.
6.19.
Matrix of ABACUS . . . . . . . .
Cluster Map of ABACUS . . . . .
Timeline of ABACUS . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of ABACUS . . . .
List of ABACUS . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of ABACUS . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of ABACUS . . . . .
Bar Chart of ABACUS . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of ABACUS . . .
UML Diagram of ABACUS . . . .
Bubble Chart of ABACUS . . . .
Treeview of ABACUS . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of ABACUS . . . . . .
Dashboard of ABACUS . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of ABACUS . . .
EPC Diagram of ABACUS . . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of ABACUS .
Line Chart of ABACUS . . . . . .
Scatter Chart of ABACUS . . . .
376
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
90
91
List of Figures
6.20.
6.21.
6.22.
6.23.
6.24.
6.25.
Geographic Map of ABACUS . . .

Business Model Canvas of ABACUS
Gauges of ABACUS . . . . . . . . .
Treemap of ABACUS . . . . . . . .
Sunburst of ABACUS . . . . . . . .
3D Visualization of ABACUS . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
92
92
93
93
94
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
7.13.
7.14.
7.15.
7.16.
7.17.
7.18.
7.19.
7.20.
7.21.
E-Mail Notification of ADOit . . .

Matrix of ADOit . . . . . . . . . .
Cluster Map of ADOit . . . . . .
Timeline of ADOit . . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of ADOit . . . . .
List of ADOit . . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of ADOit . . . . . . . . . .
Bar Chart of ADOit . . . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of ADOit . . . .
Bubble Chart of ADOit . . . . . .
Treeview of ADOit . . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of ADOit . . . . . . . .
Dashboard of ADOit . . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of ADOit . . . . .
EPC Diagram of ADOit . . . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of ADOit . .
Scatter Chart of ADOit . . . . . .
Business Model Canvas of ADOit
Gauges of ADOit . . . . . . . . .
Treemap of ADOit . . . . . . . .
Sunburst of ADOit . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
102
102
103
103
104
104
105
105
106
106
107
107
108
108
109
109
110
110
111
111
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
8.7.
8.8.
8.9.
8.10.
8.11.
8.12.
8.13.
8.14.
8.15.
8.16.
8.17.
8.18.
Matrix of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . .

Cluster Map of planningIT and ARIS . . . .
Timeline of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . . .
List of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . . . .
Graph of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . . . .
Bar Chart of planningIT and ARIS . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . .
UML Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . . .
Bubble Chart of planningIT and ARIS . . .
Treeview of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . .
Pie Chart of planningIT and ARIS . . . . .
Dashboard of planningIT and ARIS . . . . .
Radar Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . .
EPC Diagram of planningIT and ARIS . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of planningIT and ARIS
Line Chart of planningIT and ARIS . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120
120
121
121
122
122
123
123
124
124
125
125
126
126
127
127
128
128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
377
List of Figures
8.19.
8.20.
8.21.
8.22.
8.23.
Scatter Chart of planningIT and ARIS . . . . .

Geographic Map of planningIT and ARIS . . . .
Business Model Canvas of planningIT and ARIS
Gauges of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . . . .
Treemap of planningIT and ARIS . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
129
129
130
130
131
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
9.5.
9.6.
9.7.
9.8.
9.9.
9.10.
9.11.
9.12.
9.13.
9.14.
9.15.
9.16.
9.17.
9.18.
9.19.
9.20.
9.21.
9.22.
9.23.
9.24.
Query Dialog of BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . .

Matrix of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . . .
Cluster Map of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . .
Timeline of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . .
List of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . .
Bar Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . .
UML Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . .
Bubble Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . .
Treeview of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . .
Dashboard of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . .
EPC Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of the BiZZdesign Architect . .
Line Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . .
Scatter Chart of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . .
Geographic Map of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . .
Business Model Canvas of the BiZZdesign Architect
Treemap of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . . .
Tag Cloud of the BiZZdesign Architect . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
134
140
140
141
141
142
142
143
143
144
144
145
145
146
146
147
147
148
148
149
149
150
150
151
10.1.
10.2.
10.3.
10.4.
10.5.
10.6.
10.7.
10.8.
10.9.
10.10.
Matrix of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . . . . .

Cluster Map of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . .
Timeline of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . . . .
Graph of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . .
UML Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . .
Dashboard of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . . . .
EPC Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of the Corporate Modeler Suite
3D Visualization of the Corporate Modeler Suite . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
160
160
161
161
162
162
163
163
164
164
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.
11.5.
Matrix of the Enterprise Architect . . . . .

Timeline of the Enterprise Architect . . . .
Flow Diagram of the Enterprise Architect .
List of the Enterprise Architect . . . . . .
Graph of the Enterprise Architect . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
172
172
173
173
174
378
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Figures
11.6.
11.7.
11.8.
11.9.
11.10.
ER Diagram of the Enterprise Architect . .

BPMN Diagram of the Enterprise Architect
UML Diagram of the Enterprise Architect .
Treeview of the Enterprise Architect . . . . .
EPC Diagram of the Enterprise Architect . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
174
175
175
176
176
12.1.
12.2.
12.3.
12.4.
12.5.
12.6.
12.7.
12.8.
12.9.
12.10.
12.11.
12.12.
12.13.
12.14.
12.15.
12.16.
12.17.
Matrix of Envision VIP . . . . . .

Cluster Map of Envision VIP . . .
Flow Diagram of Envision VIP . .
Graph of Envision VIP . . . . . .
ER Diagram of Envision VIP . . .
Bar Chart of Envision VIP . . . .
BPMN Diagram of Envision VIP
UML Diagram of Envision VIP .
Pie Chart of Envision VIP . . . .
Dashboard of Envision VIP . . . .
Radar Diagram of Envision VIP .
Line Chart of Envision VIP . . .
Geographic Map of Envision VIP
Gauges of Envision VIP . . . . . .
Treemap of Envision VIP . . . . .
Tag Cloud of Envision VIP . . . .
3D Visualization of Envision VIP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
184
184
185
185
186
186
187
187
188
188
189
189
190
190
191
191
192
13.1.
13.2.
13.3.
13.4.
13.5.
13.6.
13.7.
13.8.
13.9.
13.10.
13.11.
13.12.
13.13.
13.14.
Form-based Visualization Wizard of

Matrix of iteraplan . . . . . . . . .
Cluster Map of iteraplan . . . . . .
Timeline of iteraplan . . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of iteraplan . . . . .
List of iteraplan . . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of iteraplan . . . . . . . . . .
Bar Chart of iteraplan . . . . . . .
Bubble Chart of iteraplan . . . . .
Treeview of iteraplan . . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of iteraplan . . . . . . . .
Dashboard of iteraplan . . . . . . .
Line Chart of iteraplan . . . . . . .
Scatter Chart of iteraplan . . . . .
iteraplan
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
194
200
200
201
201
202
202
203
203
204
204
205
205
206
14.1.
14.2.
14.3.
14.4.
14.5.
14.6.
14.7.
14.8.
Matrix of Layer8 . . . . .
Flow Diagram of Layer8
List of Layer8 . . . . . .
Graph of Layer8 . . . . .
ER Diagram of Layer8 .
Bar Chart of Layer8 . . .
Treeview of Layer8 . . .
Pie Chart of Layer8 . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
214
214
215
215
216
216
217
217
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
379
List of Figures
14.9.
14.10.
14.11.
14.12.
14.13.
14.14.
Dashboard of Layer8 . . .
Radar Diagram of Layer8 .
Line Chart of Layer8 . . .
Scatter Chart of Layer8 . .
Geographic Map of Layer8
Gauges of Layer8 . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
218
218
219
219
220
220
15.1.
15.2.
15.3.
15.4.
15.5.
15.6.
15.7.
15.8.
15.9.
15.10.
15.11.
15.12.
Data filter and Visualization of leanIX

Cluster Map of the leanIX . . . . . . .
Timeline of the leanIX . . . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of the leanIX . . . . . .
List of the leanIX . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bar Chart of the leanIX . . . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of the leanIX . . . . .
Bubble Chart of the leanIX . . . . . . .
Treeview of the leanIX . . . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of the leanIX . . . . . . . . .
Line Chart of the leanIX . . . . . . . .
Geographic Map of the leanIX . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
222
228
228
229
229
230
230
231
231
232
232
233
16.1.
16.2.
16.3.
16.4.
16.5.
16.6.
16.7.
16.8.
16.9.
16.10.
16.11.
16.12.
16.13.
16.14.
16.15.
16.16.
16.17.
16.18.
16.19.
16.20.
16.21.
16.22.
Matrix of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . . .

Timeline of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . .
List of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . .
Bar Chart of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . .
UML Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . . .
Bubble Chart of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . .
Treeview of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . .
Dashboard of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . . .
EPC Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of the MEGA Architecture . .
Line Chart of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . .
Scatter Chart of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . .
Geographic Map of the MEGA Architecture . . . .
Business Model Canvas of the MEGA Architecture
Gauges of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . .
Treemap of the MEGA Architecture . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
242
242
243
243
244
244
245
245
246
246
247
247
248
248
249
249
250
250
251
251
252
252
17.1.
17.2.
17.3.
17.4.
Matrix of the PowerDesigner . . .

Cluster Map of the PowerDesigner
List of the PowerDesigner . . . . .
Graph of the PowerDesigner . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
260
260
261
261
380
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Figures
17.5.
17.6.
17.7.
17.8.
17.9.
17.10.
ER Diagram of the PowerDesigner . . . . . . .

BPMN Diagram of the PowerDesigner . . . . .
UML Diagram of the PowerDesigner . . . . .
Treeview of the PowerDesigner . . . . . . . . .
Business Model Canvas of the PowerDesigner .
Tag Cloud of the PowerDesigner . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
262
262
263
263
264
264
18.1.
18.2.
18.3.
18.4.
18.5.
18.6.
18.7.
18.8.
18.9.
18.10.
18.11.
18.12.
18.13.
18.14.
18.15.
Access management of process4.biz

Matrix of process4.biz . . . . . . . .
Cluster Map of process4.biz . . . .
Timeline of process4.biz . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of process4.biz . . .
List of process4.biz . . . . . . . . .
Graph of process4.biz . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of process4.biz . . . .
Bar Chart of process4.biz . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of process4.biz . .
UML Diagram of process4.biz . . .
Bubble Chart of process4.biz . . . .
Pie Chart of process4.biz . . . . . .
EPC Diagram of process4.biz . . . .
Tag Cloud of process4.biz . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
266
272
272
273
273
274
274
275
275
276
276
277
277
278
278
19.1.
19.2.
19.3.
19.4.
19.5.
19.6.
19.7.
19.8.
19.9.
19.10.
19.11.
19.12.
19.13.
19.14.
19.15.
19.16.
19.17.
19.18.
19.19.
Matrix of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . . .

Cluster Map of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . .
Timeline of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . .
List of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . . . . .
Graph of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . .
Bar Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . .
UML Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . .
Treeview of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . .
Dashboard of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . .
EPC Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect
Line Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . .
Scatter Chart of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . .
Gauges of the QPR EnterpriseArchitect . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
286
286
287
287
288
288
289
289
290
290
291
291
292
292
293
293
294
294
295
20.1.
20.2.
20.3.
20.4.
Impact analysis in Rational System Architect

Matrix of the Rational System Architect . . .
Cluster Map of the Rational System Architect
Graph of the Rational System Architect . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
298
305
305
306
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
381
List of Figures
20.5.
BPMN Diagram of the Rational System Architect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
21.1.
21.2.
21.3.
21.4.
21.5.
21.6.
21.7.
21.8.
21.9.
21.10.
21.11.
21.12.
21.13.
21.14.
21.15.
21.16.
21.17.
Matrix of the SAMU Repository . . . . . . . .

Cluster Map of the SAMU Repository . . . . .
Timeline of the SAMU Repository . . . . . . .
Flow Diagram of the SAMU Repository . . . .
List of the SAMU Repository . . . . . . . . .
Graph of the SAMU Repository . . . . . . . .
ER Diagram of the SAMU Repository . . . . .
Bar Chart of the SAMU Repository . . . . . .
BPMN Diagram of the SAMU Repository . .
Bubble Chart of the SAMU Repository . . . .
Treeview of the SAMU Repository . . . . . . .
Pie Chart of the SAMU Repository . . . . . .
Dashboard of the SAMU Repository . . . . . .
Radar Diagram of the SAMU Repository . . .
ArchiMate Diagram of the SAMU Repository
Scatter Chart of the SAMU Repository . . . .
Geographic Map of the SAMU Repository . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
314
314
315
315
316
316
317
317
318
318
319
319
320
320
321
321
322
22.1.
22.2.
22.3.
22.4.
22.5.
22.6.
22.7.
22.8.
22.9.
Matrix of Tricia . . . . .
Cluster Map of Tricia . .
Timeline of Tricia . . . .
List of Tricia . . . . . . .
Graph of Tricia . . . . .
Bar Chart of Tricia . . .
UML Diagram of Tricia .
Bubble Chart of Tricia .
Radar Diagram of Tricia
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
330
330
331
331
332
332
333
333
334
23.1.
23.2.
23.3.
List of Txture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Graph of Txture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Treemap of Txture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
24.1.
24.2.
24.3.
24.4.
24.5.
24.6.
Organizations by Number of Years active in EA management .

Organizations by Industry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organizations by Number of Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Participants by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Participants by Job Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EA management experience of the participants . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
348
349
349
350
350
351
25.1.
25.2.
25.3.
25.4.
25.5.
25.6.
25.7.
Which Tools do EA experts use to create EA visualizations? . . . . .

Usage of Visualization Types by the EA experts . . . . . . . . . . . .
Usage and Usage Intentions of Visualization Types by the EA experts
How frequently are visualizations updated for specific stakeholders? .
Who does the customization of EA visualizations? . . . . . . . . . . .
How do EA practitioners customize visualizations? . . . . . . . . . . .
Which visual attributes do EA experts customize? . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
353
354
355
355
356
356
357
382
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Figures
25.8.
25.9.
25.10.
25.11.
Which
Which
Which
Which
export formats do EA experts use? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

concepts are adapted by EA experts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
operations are used by EA experts to adapt an EA information model?
information sources are integrated with the EA tool? . . . . . . . . . .
357
358
359
360
26.1.
Derived Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
383
List of Tables
1.1.
1.2.
Overview of tool surveys related to this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview of tools that are subject of analysis in the respective surveys . . . .
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9.
3.10.
Index to Examples of Visualization Types Supported by EA Tools . . . . . .

Information model binding and approach to create a visualization . . . . . .
Customization of visual parameters and layouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Import/Export Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schema Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schema Setup and Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concepts that can be imported/exported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability Support of EA tools for Third Party Applications Summary
Supported EA Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
6.7.
6.8.
6.9.
6.10.
6.11.
6.12.
6.13.
Vendor Information of Avolution Pty Ltd . . . . . . . .

General Information (ABACUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (ABACUS)
Binding (ABACUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (ABACUS) . . . .
Visual Customization (ABACUS) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (ABACUS) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (ABACUS) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (ABACUS) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (ABACUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (ABACUS) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (ABACUS) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (ABACUS) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
79
79
80
80
81
81
7.1.
7.2.
Vendor Information of BOC AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

General Information (ADOit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
7
385
List of Tables
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
7.13.
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (ADOit)

Binding (ADOit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (ADOit) . . . .
Visual Customization (ADOit) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (ADOit) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (ADOit) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (ADOit) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (ADOit) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (ADOit) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (ADOit) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (ADOit) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
98
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
101
101
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
8.7.
8.8.
8.9.
8.10.
8.11.
8.12.
8.13.
Vendor Information of Software AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (planningIT and ARIS) .
Binding (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . .
Visual Customization (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (planningIT and ARIS) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (planningIT and ARIS) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
115
115
116
116
116
117
117
117
118
118
119
119
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
9.5.
9.6.
9.7.
9.8.
9.9.
9.10.
9.11.
9.12.
9.13.
Vendor Information of BiZZdesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (BiZZdesign Architect)
Binding (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . .
Visual Customization (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (BiZZdesign Architect) .
Data & Schema Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (BiZZdesign Architect) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
134
135
135
136
136
136
137
137
137
138
138
139
139
10.1.
10.2.
10.3.
10.4.
10.5.
10.6.
10.7.
Vendor Information of Casewise Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Corporate Modeler
Binding (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Visual Customization (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Suite)
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
154
154
155
155
156
156
157
386
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Tables
10.8.
10.9.
10.10.
10.11.
10.12.
10.13.
Information Model Type (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . . . . .

Information Model Flexibility (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Corporate Modeler Suite)
Data & Schema Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Corporate Modeler Suite) . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
157
157
158
158
159
159
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.
11.5.
11.6.
11.7.
11.8.
11.9.
11.10.
11.11.
11.12.
11.13.
Vendor Information of Sparx Systems Pty Ltd . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Enterprise Architect)
Binding (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Enterprise Architect) . . . .
Visual Customization (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Enterprise Architect) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Enterprise Architect) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
166
167
167
168
168
168
169
169
169
170
170
171
171
12.1.
12.2.
12.3.
12.4.
12.5.
12.6.
12.7.
12.8.
12.9.
12.10.
12.11.
12.12.
12.13.
Vendor Information of Future Tech Systems, Inc. . . . . .

General Information (Envision VIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Envision VIP)
Binding (Envision VIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Envision VIP) . . . .
Visual Customization (Envision VIP) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Envision VIP) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Envision VIP) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Envision VIP) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Envision VIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Envision VIP) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (Envision VIP) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Envision VIP) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
178
178
179
179
180
180
181
181
181
182
182
183
183
13.1.
13.2.
13.3.
13.4.
13.5.
13.6.
13.7.
13.8.
13.9.
13.10.
13.11.
13.12.
Vendor Information of iteratec GmbH . . . . . . . . .

General Information (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (iteraplan)
Binding (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (iteraplan) . . . .
Visual Customization (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (iteraplan) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (iteraplan) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (iteraplan) .
Data & Schema Import/Export (iteraplan) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
194
195
195
196
196
196
197
197
197
198
198
199
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
387
List of Tables
13.13. Model Element Import/Export (iteraplan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
14.1.
14.2.
14.3.
14.4.
14.5.
14.6.
14.7.
14.8.
14.9.
14.10.
14.11.
14.12.
14.13.
Vendor Information of Layer8-Solutions GbR . . . .

General Information (Layer8) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Layer8)
Binding (Layer8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Layer8) . . . .
Visual Customization (Layer8) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Layer8) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Layer8) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Layer8) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Layer8) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Layer8) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (Layer8) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Layer8) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
208
208
209
209
210
210
211
211
211
212
212
213
213
15.1.
15.2.
15.3.
15.4.
15.5.
15.6.
15.7.
15.8.
15.9.
15.10.
15.11.
15.12.
15.13.
Vendor Information of LeanIX GmbH . . . . . . . .

General Information (leanIX) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (leanIX)
Binding (leanIX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (leanIX) . . . .
Visual Customization (leanIX) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (leanIX) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (leanIX) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (leanIX) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (leanIX) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (leanIX) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (leanIX) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (leanIX) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
222
223
223
224
224
224
225
225
225
226
226
227
227
16.1.
16.2.
16.3.
16.4.
16.5.
16.6.
16.7.
16.8.
16.9.
16.10.
16.11.
16.12.
16.13.
Vendor Information of MEGA International S.A. . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (MEGA Architecture)
Binding (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (MEGA Architecture) . . . .
Visual Customization (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (MEGA Architecture) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (MEGA Architecture) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
236
236
237
237
238
238
239
239
239
240
240
241
241
17.1.
17.2.
17.3.
17.4.
Vendor Information of SAP Deutschland AG & Co. KG . .

General Information (PowerDesigner) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (PowerDesigner) .
Binding (PowerDesigner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
254
254
255
255
388
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Tables
17.5.
17.6.
17.7.
17.8.
17.9.
17.10.
17.11.
17.12.
17.13.
Visualization Generation Approach (PowerDesigner) . . .

Visual Customization (PowerDesigner) . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (PowerDesigner) . . . . . .
Information Model Type (PowerDesigner) . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (PowerDesigner) . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (PowerDesigner) . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (PowerDesigner)
Data & Schema Import/Export (PowerDesigner) . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (PowerDesigner) . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
256
256
257
257
257
258
258
259
259
18.1.
18.2.
18.3.
18.4.
18.5.
18.6.
18.7.
18.8.
18.9.
18.10.
18.11.
18.12.
18.13.
Vendor Information of process4.biz SoftwareentwicklungsGeneral Information (process4.biz) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Visualization Import/Export File Formats (process4.biz)
Binding (process4.biz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (process4.biz) . . . .
Visual Customization (process4.biz) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (process4.biz) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (process4.biz) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (process4.biz) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (process4.biz) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (process4.biz) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (process4.biz) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (process4.biz) . . . . . .
und Vertriebs
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
19.1.
19.2.
19.3.
19.4.
19.5.
19.6.
19.7.
19.8.
19.9.
19.10.
19.11.
19.12.
19.13.
Vendor Information of QPR Software Plc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) .
Binding (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . .
Visual Customization (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (QPR EnterpriseArchitect) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
280
281
281
282
282
282
283
283
283
284
284
285
285
20.1.
20.2.
20.3.
20.4.
20.5.
20.6.
20.7.
20.8.
20.9.
Vendor Information of IBM Deutschland GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Rational System Architect)
Binding (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Rational System Architect) . . . .
Visual Customization (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
299
299
300
300
301
301
302
302
302
GmbH266
. . . . 267
. . . . 267
. . . . 268
. . . . 268
. . . . 268
. . . . 269
. . . . 269
. . . . 269
. . . . 270
. . . . 270
. . . . 271
. . . . 271
389
List of Tables
20.10.
20.11.
20.12.
20.13.
Import Mechanisms (Rational System Architect) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Rational System Architect)
Data & Schema Import/Export (Rational System Architect) . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Rational System Architect) . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
303
303
304
304
21.1.
21.2.
21.3.
21.4.
21.5.
21.6.
21.7.
21.8.
21.9.
21.10.
21.11.
21.12.
21.13.
Vendor Information of Atoll Technologies Ltd . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (SAMU Repository)
Binding (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (SAMU Repository) . . . .
Visual Customization (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (SAMU Repository) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (SAMU Repository) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (SAMU Repository) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
308
308
309
309
310
310
311
311
311
312
312
313
313
22.1.
22.2.
22.3.
22.4.
22.5.
22.6.
22.7.
22.8.
22.9.
22.10.
22.11.
22.12.
22.13.
Vendor Information of infoAsset AG . . . . . . . . .

General Information (Tricia) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Tricia) .
Binding (Tricia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Tricia) . . . . .
Visual Customization (Tricia) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Tricia) . . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Tricia) . . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Tricia) . . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Tricia) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Tricia) . .
Data & Schema Import/Export (Tricia) . . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Tricia) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
324
324
325
325
326
326
327
327
327
328
328
329
329
23.1.
23.2.
23.3.
23.4.
23.5.
23.6.
23.7.
23.8.
23.9.
23.10.
23.11.
23.12.
23.13.
Vendor Information of QELab . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Information (Txture) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Import/Export File Formats (Txture)
Binding (Txture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visualization Generation Approach (Txture) . . . .
Visual Customization (Txture) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Import/Export (Txture) . . . . . . .
Information Model Type (Txture) . . . . . . . . . .
Information Model Flexibility (Txture) . . . . . . .
Import Mechanisms (Txture) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interoperability with Third Party Tools (Txture) .
Data & Schema Import/Export (Txture) . . . . . .
Model Element Import/Export (Txture) . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
336
336
337
337
338
338
339
339
339
340
340
341
341
26.1.
Ten most relevant challenges in EA management [HSR+ 13] . . . . . . . . . . . 363
390
Bibliography
[AHR14]
Aleatrati, P.; Hauder, M.; Roth, S.: Impact of Solvency II on the Enterprise
Architecture of Insurances: A Qualitative Study in Germany. In Multikonferenz
Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI). Paderborn, Germany. 2014.
[Av12]
Avolution: EAM Tool RFP lessons learnt. 2012. White Paper.
[BBDF+ 12] Berneaud, M.; Buckl, S.; Diaz-Fuentes, A.; Matthes, F.; Monahov, I.; Nowobliska, A.; Roth, S.: Trends for Enterprise Architecture Management Tools Survey.
Technical report. Technical University Munich. 2012.
[BEG+ 12]
Buschle, M.; Ekstedt, M.; Grunow, S.; Hauder, M.; Matthes, F.; Roth, S.: Automated Enterprise Architecture Documentation using an Enterprise Service Bus.
In Proceedings of in Americas conference on Information Systems (AMCIS).
2012.
[BOH11]
Bostock, M.; Ogievetsky, V.; Heer, J.: D3 : Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 17(12):23012309. December
2011.
[FBH+ 13a] Farwick, M.; Breu, R.; Hauder, M.; Roth, S.; Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Documentation: Empirical Analysis of Information Sources for Automation.
In 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui,
Hawaii. 2013.
[FBH+ 13b] Farwick, M.; Breu, R.; Hauder, M.; Roth, S.; Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Documentation: Empirical Analysis of Information Sources for Automation.
In 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui,
Hawaii. 2013.
[Fo13]
Forrester Research: The Forrester Wave: EA Management Suites, Q2

2013. 2013. Online http://www.forrester.com/The+Forrester+Wave+EA+
Management+Suites+Q2+2013/fulltext/-/E-RES90501 (last accessed: Thursday 10th April, 2014).
391
Bibliography
[FTB+ 13]
Farwick, M.; Trojer, T.; Breu, M.; Ginther, S.; Kleinlercher, J.; Doblander,
A.: A Case Study on Textual Enterprise Architecture Modeling. In TEAR: The
8th Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research. IEEE. 2013.
[Ga12]
Gartner Research: Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools. 2012.

Online https://www.gartner.com/doc/2219916 (last accessed: Thursday 10th
April, 2014).
[Ga13]
Gartner Research: Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools. 2013.

Online https://www.gartner.com/doc/2601526 (last accessed: Thursday 10th
April, 2014).
[GMR12]
Grunow, S.; Matthes, F.; Roth, S.: Towards Automated Enterprise Architecture
Documentation: Data Quality Aspects of SAP PI. In 16th East European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (ADBIS). pages
103113. Pozna, Poland. 2012.
[Ha10]
Hanschke, I.: Strategic IT Management: A Toolkit for Enterprise Architecture

Management. Springer. 2010.
[HMR12]
Hauder, M.; Matthes, F.; Roth, S.: Challenges for Automated Enterprise Architecture Documentation. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and
Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation. pages 2139. Springer.
2012.
[HMR+ 12] Hauder, M.; Matthes, F.; Roth, S.; Schulz, C.: Generating dynamic crossorganizational process visualizations through abstract view model pattern matching. In Architecture Modeling for Future Internet enabled Enterprise (AMFInE).
2012.
[HSR+ 13]
Hauder, M.; Schulz, C.; Roth, S.; Matthes, F.: Organizational Factors Influencing
Enterprise Architecture Management Challenges. In 21st European Conference
on Information Systems (ECIS), Utrecht, Netherland. 2013.
[In12]
Institute of Educational Cybernetics: Archi ArchiMate Modelling. 2012. Online http://archi.cetis.ac.uk/ (last accessed: Thursday 10th April, 2014).
[ISO07]
International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 42010:2007 Systems

and software engineering Recommended practice for architectural description
of software-intensive systems. 2007.
[KS13]
Knoll, R.; Schulz, C.: Enterprise Architecture Tool Survey 2013. Whitepaper.
2013.
[MBL+ 08]
Matthes, F.; Buckl, S.; Leitel, J.; Schweda, C. M.: Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008. Technical report. Technical University Munich. 2008.
[Ne12]
Neubert, C.: Facilitating Emergent and Adaptive Information Structures in Enterprise 2.0 Platforms. PhD thesis. Technical University Munich. M
unchen,
Germany. 2012.
392
Bibliography
[RHF+ 13]
Roth, S.; Hauder, M.; Farwick, M.; Breu, R.; Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Documentation: Current Practices and Future Directions. In 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), Leipzig, Germany. 2013.
[RHM13]
Roth, S.; Hauder, M.; Matthes, F.: Collaborative Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Models. In 8th International Workshop on Models at Runtime (Models@run.time). Miami, USA. 2013.
[RHZ+ 13]
Roth, S.; Hauder, M.; Zec, M.; Utz, A.; Matthes, F.: Empowering Business Users
to Analyze Enterprise Architectures: Structural Model Matching to Configure
Visualizations. In 7th Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research
(TEAR 2013). Vancouver, Canada. 2013.
[RM13]
Roth, S.; Matthes, F.: Future Research Topics in Enterprise Architectures Evolution Analysis. In Software Engineering (SE) Design for Future (DFF) Workshop. 2013.
[SMR12]
Schaub, M.; Matthes, F.; Roth, S.: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Interactive Enterprise Architecture Management Visualizations. In Modellierung.
Bamberg, Germany. 2012.
[Sp01]
Spence, R.: Information visualization. ACM Press books. Addison-Wesley. Harlow, England. 2001.
[Th11]
The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing. 2011.
[Th12]
The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing. 2012.
[Wa12]
Ware, C.: Information visualization: perception for design. Morgan Kaufmann

Publishers. 3rd edition. 2012.
[Wi07]
Wittenburg, A.: Softwarekartographie: Modelle und Methoden zur systematischen

Visualisierung von Anwendungslandschaften. PhD thesis. Technical University
Munich. 2007.
[Za87]
Zachman, J. A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM System

Journal. 26(3):276292. 1987.
393
Index
3D Visualization, 71
3D Visualization
ABACUS, 94
ADOit, 111
BiZZdesign Architect, 151
Corporate Modeler Suite, 164
Enterprise Architect, 176
Envision VIP, 192
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
MEGA Architecture, 252
planningIT and ARIS, 131
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
QPR EnterpriseArchitect, 295
Rational System Architect, 306
SAMU Repository, 322
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
ABACUS, 76
ArchiMate Diagram, 90
Bar Chart, 86
BPMN Diagram, 86
Bubble Chart, 87
Business Model Canvas, 92
Cluster Map, 83
Dashboard, 88
EPC Diagram, 90
ER Diagram, 85
Flow Diagram, 84
Gauges, 92
Geographic Map, 92
Graph, 84
Line Chart, 90
List, 84
Matrix, 82
Pie Chart, 88
Radar Diagram, 89
Scatter Chart, 91
Sunburst, 94
Tag Cloud, 93
Timeline, 83
Treemap, 93
Treeview, 88
UML Diagram, 87
ADOit, 96
Bar Chart, 105
BPMN Diagram, 106
Bubble Chart, 106
Cluster Map, 103
Dashboard, 108
EPC Diagram, 109
ER Diagram, 105
Flow Diagram, 104
Gauges, 111
Geographic Map, 110
Graph, 105
Line Chart, 109
List, 104
Matrix, 102
395
Index
Pie Chart, 107
Radar Diagram, 108
Scatter Chart, 110
Sunburst, 111
Tag Cloud, 111
Timeline, 103
Treemap, 111
Treeview, 107
UML Diagram, 106
ArchiMate Diagram
ABACUS, 90
ADOit, 109
Envision VIP, 189
iteraplan, 205
Layer8, 218
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
ArchiMate, 63
Atoll Technologies Ltd, 308
Avolution Pty Ltd, 76
Bar Chart
ABACUS, 86
ADOit, 105
Envision VIP, 186
iteraplan, 203
Layer8, 216
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 262
process4.biz, 275
396

Tricia, 332
Txture, 343
Bar Chart, 54
Bar Chart, 144
BPMN Diagram, 144
Bubble Chart, 145
Cluster Map, 141
Dashboard, 147
EPC Diagram, 148
ER Diagram, 143
Flow Diagram, 142
Gauges, 150
Geographic Map, 149
Graph, 143
Line Chart, 148
List, 142
Matrix, 140
Pie Chart, 146
Radar Diagram, 147
Scatter Chart, 149
Sunburst, 151
Tag Cloud, 151
Timeline, 141
Treemap, 150
Treeview, 146
UML Diagram, 144
BiZZdesign, 134
BOC AG, 96
BPMN Diagram
ABACUS, 86
ADOit, 106
Envision VIP, 187
iteraplan, 203
Layer8, 216
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 263
Index
process4.biz, 276
Tricia, 332
Txture, 343
Bubble Chart
ABACUS, 87
ADOit, 106
Envision VIP, 188
iteraplan, 204
Layer8, 216
leanIX, 231
PowerDesigner, 263
process4.biz, 277
Tricia, 333
Txture, 343
Bubble Chart, 57
ABACUS, 92
ADOit, 110
Envision VIP, 190
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Business Process Model and Notation

(BPMN), 55
Casewise Ltd, 154
Cluster Map
ABACUS, 83
ADOit, 103
Envision VIP, 185
iteraplan, 201
Layer8, 214
leanIX, 228
PowerDesigner, 261
process4.biz, 273
Tricia, 330
Txture, 342
Cluster Map, 48
Conceptual Framework, 29
configuration, 34
Bar Chart, 162
BPMN Diagram, 162
Bubble Chart, 163
Cluster Map, 161
Dashboard, 163
EPC Diagram, 164
ER Diagram, 162
Flow Diagram, 161
Gauges, 164
Geographic Map, 164
Graph, 162
Line Chart, 164
List, 161
Matrix, 160
Pie Chart, 163
Radar Diagram, 163
Scatter Chart, 164
397
Index
Sunburst, 164
Tag Cloud, 164
Timeline, 161
Treemap, 164
Treeview, 163
UML Diagram, 163
Dashboard
ABACUS, 88
ADOit, 108
Envision VIP, 189
iteraplan, 205
Layer8, 218
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 333
Txture, 343
Dashboard, 60
Data Filter, 35
Bar Chart, 174
BPMN Diagram, 175
Bubble Chart, 175
Cluster Map, 172
Dashboard, 176
EPC Diagram, 176
ER Diagram, 174
Flow Diagram, 173
Gauges, 176
Geographic Map, 176
Graph, 174
Line Chart, 176
List, 173
Matrix, 172
398
Pie Chart, 176

Radar Diagram, 176
Scatter Chart, 176
Sunburst, 176
Tag Cloud, 176
Timeline, 172
Treemap, 176
Treeview, 176
UML Diagram, 175
Enterprise Architecture Management, 13
Entity-Relationship Diagram, 53
Envision VIP, 178
Bar Chart, 186
BPMN Diagram, 187
Bubble Chart, 188
Cluster Map, 185
Dashboard, 189
EPC Diagram, 189
ER Diagram, 186
Flow Diagram, 185
Gauges, 191
Geographic Map, 190
Graph, 186
Line Chart, 190
List, 185
Matrix, 184
Pie Chart, 188
Radar Diagram, 189
Scatter Chart, 190
Sunburst, 191
Tag Cloud, 191
Timeline, 185
Treemap, 191
Treeview, 188
UML Diagram, 188
EPC Diagram
ABACUS, 90
ADOit, 109
Envision VIP, 189
iteraplan, 205
Layer8, 218
Index
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
ER Diagram
ABACUS, 85
ADOit, 105
Envision VIP, 186
iteraplan, 202
Layer8, 216
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 262
process4.biz, 275
Tricia, 332
Txture, 343
Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC), 62
Flow Diagram
ABACUS, 84
ADOit, 104
Envision VIP, 185
iteraplan, 202
Layer8, 214
leanIX, 229
PowerDesigner, 261
process4.biz, 273

Tricia, 331
Txture, 342
Flow Diagram, 50
Future Tech Systems, Inc., 178
Gauge, 68
Gauges
ABACUS, 92
ADOit, 111
Envision VIP, 191
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Geographic Map
ABACUS, 92
ADOit, 110
Envision VIP, 190
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Geographic Map, 66
Graph
399
Index
ABACUS, 84
ADOit, 105
Envision VIP, 186
iteraplan, 202
Layer8, 215
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 262
process4.biz, 275
Tricia, 332
Txture, 343
Graph, 52
IBM Deutschland GmbH, 298
infoAsset AG, 324
information model, 33
iteraplan, 194
Bar Chart, 203
BPMN Diagram, 203
Bubble Chart, 204
Cluster Map, 201
Dashboard, 205
EPC Diagram, 205
ER Diagram, 202
Flow Diagram, 202
Gauges, 206
Geographic Map, 206
Graph, 202
Line Chart, 205
List, 202
Matrix, 200
Pie Chart, 204
Radar Diagram, 205
Scatter Chart, 206
Sunburst, 206
Tag Cloud, 206
Timeline, 201
400
Treemap, 206
Treeview, 204
UML Diagram, 203
iteratec GmbH, 194
Layer8-Solutions GbR, 208
Layer8, 208
Bar Chart, 216
BPMN Diagram, 216
Bubble Chart, 216
Cluster Map, 214
Dashboard, 218
EPC Diagram, 218
ER Diagram, 216
Flow Diagram, 214
Gauges, 220
Geographic Map, 220
Graph, 215
Line Chart, 219
List, 215
Matrix, 214
Pie Chart, 217
Radar Diagram, 218
Scatter Chart, 219
Sunburst, 220
Tag Cloud, 220
Timeline, 214
Treemap, 220
Treeview, 217
UML Diagram, 216
LeanIX GmbH, 222
leanIX, 222
Bar Chart, 230
BPMN Diagram, 230
Bubble Chart, 231
Cluster Map, 228
Dashboard, 232
EPC Diagram, 232
ER Diagram, 230
Flow Diagram, 229
Gauges, 233
Index
Geographic Map, 233
Graph, 230
Line Chart, 232
List, 230
Matrix, 228
Pie Chart, 232
Radar Diagram, 232
Scatter Chart, 232
Sunburst, 233
Tag Cloud, 233
Timeline, 229
Treemap, 233
Treeview, 232
UML Diagram, 230
Line Chart
ABACUS, 90
ADOit, 109
Envision VIP, 190
iteraplan, 205
Layer8, 219
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Line Chart, 64
List
ABACUS, 84
ADOit, 104
Envision VIP, 185
iteraplan, 202
Layer8, 215
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 261
process4.biz, 274
Tricia, 331
Txture, 342
List, 51
Matrix
ABACUS, 82
ADOit, 102
Envision VIP, 184
iteraplan, 200
Layer8, 214
leanIX, 228
PowerDesigner, 260
process4.biz, 272
Tricia, 330
Txture, 342
Matrix/Table, 46, 47
Bar Chart, 245
BPMN Diagram, 246
Bubble Chart, 247
Cluster Map, 242
Dashboard, 248
EPC Diagram, 249
ER Diagram, 245
Flow Diagram, 243
Gauges, 252
Geographic Map, 251
Graph, 244
Line Chart, 250
List, 244
Matrix, 242
Pie Chart, 248
401
Index
Radar Diagram, 249
Scatter Chart, 251
Sunburst, 252
Tag Cloud, 252
Timeline, 243
Treemap, 252
Treeview, 247
UML Diagram, 246
MEGA International S.A., 236
Pie Chart
ABACUS, 88
ADOit, 107
Envision VIP, 188
iteraplan, 204
Layer8, 217
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 333
Txture, 343
Pie Chart, 59
Bar Chart, 124
BPMN Diagram, 124
Bubble Chart, 125
Cluster Map, 121
Dashboard, 127
EPC Diagram, 128
ER Diagram, 123
Flow Diagram, 122
Gauges, 131
Geographic Map, 130
Graph, 123
Line Chart, 128
List, 122
402
Matrix, 120
Pie Chart, 126
Radar Diagram, 127
Scatter Chart, 129
Sunburst, 131
Tag Cloud, 131
Timeline, 121
Treemap, 131
Treeview, 126
UML Diagram, 125
PowerDesigner, 254
Bar Chart, 262
BPMN Diagram, 263
Bubble Chart, 263
Cluster Map, 261
Dashboard, 264
EPC Diagram, 264
ER Diagram, 262
Flow Diagram, 261
Gauges, 264
Geographic Map, 264
Graph, 262
Line Chart, 264
List, 261
Matrix, 260
Pie Chart, 264
Radar Diagram, 264
Scatter Chart, 264
Sunburst, 264
Tag Cloud, 264
Timeline, 261
Treemap, 264
Treeview, 264
UML Diagram, 263
process4.biz SoftwareentwicklungsVertriebs GmbH, 266
process4.biz, 266
Bar Chart, 275
BPMN Diagram, 276
Bubble Chart, 277
Cluster Map, 273
und
Index
Dashboard, 278
EPC Diagram, 278
ER Diagram, 275
Flow Diagram, 273
Gauges, 278
Geographic Map, 278
Graph, 275
Line Chart, 278
List, 274
Matrix, 272
Pie Chart, 278
Radar Diagram, 278
Scatter Chart, 278
Sunburst, 278
Tag Cloud, 278
Timeline, 273
Treemap, 278
Treeview, 277
UML Diagram, 276
QELab, 336
Bar Chart, 289
BPMN Diagram, 290
Bubble Chart, 291
Cluster Map, 287
Dashboard, 292
EPC Diagram, 293
ER Diagram, 289
Flow Diagram, 287
Gauges, 295
Geographic Map, 294
Graph, 289
Line Chart, 294
List, 288
Matrix, 286
Pie Chart, 291
Radar Diagram, 292
Scatter Chart, 294
Sunburst, 295
Tag Cloud, 295
Timeline, 287
Treemap, 295
Treeview, 291
UML Diagram, 291

QPR Software Plc, 280
Radar Chart, 61
Radar Diagram
ABACUS, 89
ADOit, 108
Envision VIP, 189
iteraplan, 205
Layer8, 218
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Bar Chart, 306
BPMN Diagram, 306
Bubble Chart, 306
Cluster Map, 306
Dashboard, 306
EPC Diagram, 306
ER Diagram, 306
Flow Diagram, 306
Gauges, 306
Geographic Map, 306
Graph, 306
Line Chart, 306
List, 306
Matrix, 305
Pie Chart, 306
Radar Diagram, 306
Scatter Chart, 306
Sunburst, 306
Tag Cloud, 306
Timeline, 306
403
Index
Treemap, 306
Treeview, 306
UML Diagram, 306
Bar Chart, 317
BPMN Diagram, 318
Bubble Chart, 318
Cluster Map, 315
Dashboard, 320
EPC Diagram, 320
ER Diagram, 317
Flow Diagram, 315
Gauges, 322
Geographic Map, 322
Graph, 317
Line Chart, 321
List, 316
Matrix, 314
Pie Chart, 319
Radar Diagram, 320
Scatter Chart, 321
Sunburst, 322
Tag Cloud, 322
Timeline, 315
Treemap, 322
Treeview, 319
UML Diagram, 318
SAP Deutschland AG & Co. KG, 254
Scatter Chart
ABACUS, 91
ADOit, 110
Envision VIP, 190
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 219
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
404

Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Scatter Chart, 65
Schema Binding, 34
Software AG, 114
Sparx Systems Pty Ltd, 166
Sunburst
ABACUS, 94
ADOit, 111
Envision VIP, 191
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Sunburst Chart, 72
Tag Cloud
ABACUS, 93
ADOit, 111
Envision VIP, 191
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Index
Txture, 343
Tag Cloud, 70
Timeline
ABACUS, 83
ADOit, 103
Envision VIP, 185
iteraplan, 201
Layer8, 214
leanIX, 229
PowerDesigner, 261
process4.biz, 273
Tricia, 331
Txture, 342
Timeline, 49
Tree View, 58
Treemap
ABACUS, 93
ADOit, 111
Envision VIP, 191
iteraplan, 206
Layer8, 220
leanIX, 233
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 278
Tricia, 334
Txture, 343
Treemap, 69
Treeview
ABACUS, 88
ADOit, 107

Envision VIP, 188
iteraplan, 204
Layer8, 217
leanIX, 232
PowerDesigner, 264
process4.biz, 277
Tricia, 333
Txture, 343
Tricia, 324
Bar Chart, 332
BPMN Diagram, 332
Bubble Chart, 333
Cluster Map, 330
Dashboard, 333
EPC Diagram, 334
ER Diagram, 332
Flow Diagram, 331
Gauges, 334
Geographic Map, 334
Graph, 332
Line Chart, 334
List, 331
Matrix, 330
Pie Chart, 333
Radar Diagram, 334
Scatter Chart, 334
Sunburst, 334
Tag Cloud, 334
Timeline, 331
Treemap, 334
Treeview, 333
UML Diagram, 333
Txture, 336
Bar Chart, 343
BPMN Diagram, 343
405
Index
Bubble Chart, 343
Cluster Map, 342
Dashboard, 343
EPC Diagram, 343
ER Diagram, 343
Flow Diagram, 342
Gauges, 343
Geographic Map, 343
Graph, 343
Line Chart, 343
List, 342
Matrix, 342
Pie Chart, 343
Radar Diagram, 343
Scatter Chart, 343
Sunburst, 343
Tag Cloud, 343
Timeline, 342
Treemap, 343
Treeview, 343
UML Diagram, 343
UML Diagram
ABACUS, 87
ADOit, 106
Envision VIP, 188
iteraplan, 203
Layer8, 216
leanIX, 230
PowerDesigner, 263
process4.biz, 276
Tricia, 333
Txture, 343
Unified Modeling Language, 56
Visual Parametrization, 35
Visualization
export, 34
406
Visualization Type
Sunburst Chart, 4772
visualization type, 34
Index
407

Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Enterprise Architecture Visualization Tool Survey 2014

State-of-the-Art and Future Development

Sascha Roth, Marin Zec, and Florian Matthes

Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis)

Enterprise Architecture Visualizations

2. A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function

II. EA Tools and Vendor Profiles

7. ADOit (BOC AG)

8. ALFABET (Software AG)

11.Enterprise Architect (SparxSystems Ltd)

12.Envision VIP (Future Tech Systems)

16.MEGA (MEGA International)

17.PowerDesigner (SAP AG)

18.process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und Vertriebs GmbH)

19.QPR EnterpriseArchitect (QPR Software)

20.Rational System Architect (IBM)

22.Tricia (infoAsset AG)

23.Txture (QELaB Business Services GmbH)

III. Market Demands and Trends

24.Characteristics of the Data Set

26.Trends in EA Management and Tools

Enterprise Architecture Visualizations

1.2. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4. Structure of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5. Analyzed Enterprise Architecture Management Tools . . . . . . .

1.1. Related Studies on EA Tools

Scenario Based: Trend Study,

Table 1.1.: Overview of tool surveys related to this study

1.2. Intended Audience

EAMTS08 [MBL+ 08]

Gartner 2012 [Ga12]

Gartner 2013 [Ga13]

Forrester 2013 [Fo13]

adaptive EAM (adaptive Inc.)

ADOit (BOC AG)

ARIS (Software AG)

BiZZdesign EA Tool Suite (BiZZdesign)

Corporate Modeler Suite (Casewise)

Essential Project (EAS)

Embarcadero EA/Studio (Embarcadero Technologies

Enterprise Architect (SparxSystems Ltd)

Envision VIP (Future Tech Systems)

iteraplan (iteratec GmbH)

Layer8 (Layer8-Solutions GbR)

leanIX (LeanIX GmbH)

MEGA (MEGA International)

OpenText (OpenText Corp.)

planningIT (Software AG)

PowerDesigner (Sybase/SAP AG)

process4.biz (process4.biz Softwareentwicklungs- und

QPR EnterpriseArchitect (QPR Software)

QualiWare Enterprise Architecture (QualiWare)

Rational System Architect (IBM)

SAMU Repository (Atoll Technologies Ltd)

Troux (Troux Technologies)

Txture (QELaB Business Services GmbH)

1.4. Structure of this Report

1.5. Analyzed Enterprise Architecture Management Tools

A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function

2. A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function

2.1. An Iterative Approach to the Enterprise Architecture

Best-practice Building Blocks

2. A Brief Overview of the Enterprise Architecture Management Function

2.2. Essential Layers and Cross Cutting Aspects of an Enterprise